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.

 

A Challenge to Chemtrail Believers - Explain this 1969 Issue of Popular Science:

page: 25
69
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ruthlesstruth

Originally posted by beerbaron2002
My roommate is the co-pilot on a Boeing 727, he just laughs about people who believe in chemtrails, they are contrails.


So why is it there have been studies, especially in California where they have found high levels of aluminum oxide, barium, and ammonia in the ground where there are high levels of air traffic?


There have not.

There have been tests done where people CLAIM that they found unusually high levels of various things, but upon inspection the test all seem to show perfectly normal levels, given the testing method, and the amount of aluminum, etc., naturally in the ground and air. They tend to do stupid things, like test dirty snow and assume it should be pure water, or test sludge and assume it would be pure water, or test the dirt found in air, and compare it to just air.

The test have all been examined in great detail. Example:
metabunk.org...




posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
We must make specific assumptions and then try to do more rersearch into it. I will assume the following-
1. The chemical delivery system for large commercial aircraft is executed via hollowed static wicks.
2. Commercial jet aircraft pilots are not in the know for most of the part as the delivery system is remotely activated.
3. Septic tank maintenance is used to deliver chemicals inside an aircraft.
4. Private companies hide under cloud seeding programmes while executing chemtrailing as well.
Where would you like to go ????



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Advancedboy
We must make specific assumptions and then try to do more rersearch into it. I will assume the following-
1. The chemical delivery system for large commercial aircraft is executed via hollowed static wicks.


Why are you assuming that, exactly?

And does that mean that all the photos that show trails forming 50 feet behind the engines are just regular contrails then?

And why are there no photos or anything being sprayed out of static wicks?

And it it's on large commercial aircraft, the passengers in the rear of the plane would be able to see the spraying.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Advancedboy
We must make specific assumptions and then try to do more rersearch into it. I will assume the following-
1. The chemical delivery system for large commercial aircraft is executed via hollowed static wicks.
2. Commercial jet aircraft pilots are not in the know for most of the part as the delivery system is remotely activated.
3. Septic tank maintenance is used to deliver chemicals inside an aircraft.
4. Private companies hide under cloud seeding programmes while executing chemtrailing as well.
Where would you like to go ????


None of these assumptions are likely at all.
Ask a commercial airline pilot if they would be unaware of tanks containing chemicals onboard their flights, how much do you think these imaginary tanks would weigh when full and as they are being emptied(remotely) would a pilot notice the diference in the handling of the aircraft?
Where are the witnesses working for the 'septic tank maintenence' companies or the private cloud seeding companies? Activities like these do not stay secret for long.


edit on 20-7-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


I've seen your contrailscience.com and I didn't realize it was you at first. First I want to say that I really appreciate the lengths you have gone to try to educate the public. I saw your debunking of the testing for metals done on sludge water from the film "What in the World Are They Spraying" and I say that their analysis was crap indeed. However, what do you make of the little girl in Hawaii with the high amounts of aluminum in her hair samples? Do you think this just came from another source?



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by hololeap
 

A single case of "high amounts of aluminum". How high? Why just her?
In any case, assuming there actually were a valid test, yes, another source is likely.

In an article published in 1959 (Aluminum in Some Hawaiian Plants, Pacific Science, Vol. XIII) the aluminum content of soil from various areas is given. Haiku is in east Maui, the area seen in the movie.

Haiku: 25-40%
Kapaa: 40-60%
Kukaiau: 20-35%
Honokaa: 15-30%

Volcanic soils are known to be rich in aluminum. There is no basis for the claim that "spraying" has anything to do with it. Just more unresearched, unverified nonsense.

scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu...

edit on 7/20/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by hololeap
reply to post by Uncinus
 


I've seen your contrailscience.com and I didn't realize it was you at first. First I want to say that I really appreciate the lengths you have gone to try to educate the public. I saw your debunking of the testing for metals done on sludge water from the film "What in the World Are They Spraying" and I say that their analysis was crap indeed. However, what do you make of the little girl in Hawaii with the high amounts of aluminum in her hair samples? Do you think this just came from another source?


See:
contrailscience.com...-52431


People get most of their aluminum from food, about 8 mg per day (or 8,000 ug, if you want to be sensationalistic) . They can get very high levels from antacids (100-200 mg) or buffered asprin (10-20 mg/tablet)

source: www.atsdr.cdc.gov...

It’s pretty ludicrous pointing out individual tests like this as evidence of spraying. Did they spray the trails JUST ON HER? If there was spraying then EVERYONE would have elevated level.

And why don’t they also leap to the conclusion that contrails contain Antimony, Arsnic, Cadmium, Gadolinium, Lead, Tin and Uranium, as they all had elevated levels?

www.atsdr.cdc.gov...


Aluminum (Al) – Aluminum is elevated in hair only in extreme exposures (and even then is inconsistent), and is unrelated to serum or bone aluminum. Aluminum dietary intake is unrelated to aluminum in hair, even with controlled dietary intake. Aluminum in hair is not a useful biological indicator of exposure
….
If hair analysis is undertaken for comparison of groups, choose element(s) for which the literature supports such an approach, e.g., methylmercury, e.g., NOT aluminum.


And they were not even particularly elevated. 23.1 ug/g, where the “healthy” level was 17.3? Given the huge problem with environmental contamination of aluminum for testing, and the known inconsistency of scalp hair aluminum testing, this is pretty meaningless, even if it did correlate with contrails. Which is doesn’t.

It’s not at all scientific, and it demonstrates nothing.

Oh, and yes it IS natural for a little girl to have high levels of aluminum. The chart shown says the healthy ranges are for adults, and scientists say:


Age. The age of the individual or population tested can affect the results and interpretation of hair analysis. Studies suggest, for example, that alkaline earths and zinc are not excreted as much in early years of life. The opposite is true with aluminum, of which children excrete higher levels than adults (Paschal 1989).


So if 17 is normal for an adult, then 23 sounds quite reasonable for a child.

edit on 20-7-2012 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
So you have some kind of proof that they are not hiding chemicals in the contrails??

And Popular Science is owned by the Military industrial complex.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by kman420
 


And Popular Science is owned by the Military industrial complex.

And what does that have to do with an article about persistent contrails published in 1969? Long before "chemtrails" were supposed to have started appearing.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by kman420
So you have some kind of proof that they are not hiding chemicals in the contrails??


No I don't. I also have no proof that my neighbors cat is not a robot.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by kman420
So you have some kind of proof that they are not hiding chemicals in the contrails??


No I don't. I also have no proof that my neighbors cat is not a robot.


Yeah I hate to say it but the burden of proof lies with the people making the claim that chemtrails are what they say they are.

www.nizkor.org...



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Try to have a closer look at an oxy torch. Is there a flame coming out right of the tip of the nozzle? No, once the speed of delivery( pressure) is increased so the particles start the burning process farther away. Once an airplane travels at high altitude of about 8-10 km and the speed is about 850 km/h the speed of air to the surpassing particles creates a huge pressure creating the ejected substance a thin line. The ejected material becomes visibe only when water molecules are bound to it. But it can`t happen simultaneously as the material is dipsersed at high speed, because at such pressure and amount of particles there is not anough moleculae of water to bind such amount of material. Thus when executing spraying from thin static wicks the trail will appear far behind the airplane. Hell, even the contrail appears far after an airplane, although it has to do with lack of oxygen right behind the exhaust nozzles. If the airplanes were spraying at lower speeds, say 250 km/h the chemical substance trail would be much closer to the wicks. As these airplanes are filmed from beneath and static wicks are also located near the engines, noone would notice that the actual spraying happens about 1m higher than the engine.


edit on 08.15.09 by Advancedboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

please note that there is genuine concern among these scientists as to the environmental impact of contrails. They just don't think that aircraft are spraying morgellons into the atmosphere to appease Jewish bankers.


I have to admit- that comment had me chuckling over my morning coffee- well said!



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Advancedboy
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Try to have a closer look at an oxy torch. Is there a flame coming out right of the tip of the nozzle? No, once the speed of delivery( pressure) is increased so the particles start the burning process farther away.


Yes there is:




Once an airplane travels at high altitude of about 8-10 km and the speed is about 850 km/h the speed of air to the surpassing particles creates a huge pressure creating the ejected substance a thin line. The ejected material becomes visibe only when water molecules are bound to it. But it can`t happen simultaneously as the material is dipsersed at high speed, because at such pressure and amount of particles there is not anough moleculae of water to bind such amount of material.


Sorry, but that's nonsense. Unless it's a gas, it would be visible as a thin line. It would certainly be visible from the rear of the plane.


Thus when executing spraying from thin static wicks the trail will appear far behind the airplane. Hell, even the contrail appears far after an airplane, although it has to do with lack of oxygen right behind the exhaust nozzles.

It has nothing to do with oxygen.



If the airplanes were spraying at lower speeds, say 250 km/h the chemical substance trail would be much closer to the wicks. As these airplanes are filmed from beneath and static wicks are also located near the engines, noone would notice that the actual spraying happens about 1m higher than the engine.


Good try, but all you are saying in your theory is that chemtrails would be indistinguishable from contrails. So what's the point of such a theory? How can it be tested? Or do you think there's some visual difference between a chemtrail and a contrail?
edit on 20-7-2012 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 

"None of these assumptions are likely at all.
Ask a commercial airline pilot if they would be unaware of tanks containing chemicals onboard their flights, how much do you think these imaginary tanks would weigh when full and as they are being emptied(remotely) would a pilot notice the diference in the handling of the aircraft?
Where are the witnesses working for the 'septic tank maintenence' companies or the private cloud seeding companies? Activities like these do not stay secret for long. "


Let me reiterate the question- how many taxi drivers are aware that their Chrysler cars are built on Mercedes and Mitsubishi platforms and that their seat power modes and all actuators are actually powered by japanese Denso? How many Harley -Davidson hardcore fans actually know that their bikes have japanese Showa forks?
No, pilots wouldn`t know. And the actual amount of chemicals on each ariplane is not that big, because the amount needed is not that big, because the biggest job is done by water in the air that binds the chemicals.
About cloud seeding- it is completely in open , you can check for yourself there are many companies countrywise that execute these projects, they have even stated the times and area of activities.



edit on 08.15.09 by Advancedboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Advancedboy
 


But if the contrail is going to form anyway, then what are they even spraying for?



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Advancedboy



No, pilots wouldn`t know. And the actual amount of chemicals on each ariplane is not that big, because the amount needed is not that big, because the biggest job is done by water in the air that binds the chemicals.


edit on 08.15.09 by Advancedboy because: (no reason given)


How do you know this please?

Also are you talking about cloud seeding or chemtrails?

Edit: I know some CA pilots and have spoken to them about chemtrails, all of them state that there's no way there would be tanks with some unknown substance onboard and they not knowing about it, this remote activation theory has been brought up many time before, but you obviously think otherwise. Do you know any CA pilots? Ask one yourself.


edit on 20-7-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Since Popular Science has been accepted here to be a solid source on the topic I thought I'd add this, from just last year:

www.popsci.com...

Again, mention of adding "aerosols" to the atmosphere for a myriad of reasons. The most prevalent of which seems to be to curb the affects of "global warming"

There have been many, many posts in various threads like this documenting the plans to add aerosols to the atmosphere. Links to patents have been posted further giving credence to this activity as being real and not some fantastical "theory" cooked up by bloodshot eyes over a case of Jolt cola.

There is WAY too much smoke to not be fire with respect to this argument. And that is a fact not an opinion.
People who come into these discussions only to desperately convince everyone "nothing is going on" are simply IGNORANT to the evidence suggesting it is. Circumstantial or not, at the very least, there is enough of it to give any sane, reasonable person pause on the topic.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Advancedboy
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 

"None of these assumptions are likely at all.
Ask a commercial airline pilot if they would be unaware of tanks containing chemicals onboard their flights, how much do you think these imaginary tanks would weigh when full and as they are being emptied(remotely) would a pilot notice the diference in the handling of the aircraft?
Where are the witnesses working for the 'septic tank maintenence' companies or the private cloud seeding companies? Activities like these do not stay secret for long. "

It's called in-flight fuel management.

4.3.7.2 The pilot-in-command shall continually ensure that the amount of usable fuel remaining on board is not less than the fuel required to proceed to an aerodrome where a safe landing can be
made with the planned final reserve fuel remaining upon landing.
Source

During regular flight operations the pilot has to be vividly aware of the weight of the aircraft in order to properly calculate their power-to-weight fuel usage and manage it. Just dumping something from the aircraft is not going to go unnoticed.


Originally posted by Advancedboy
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 
Let me reiterate the question- how many taxi drivers are aware that their Chrysler cars are built on Mercedes and Mitsubishi platforms and that their seat power modes and all actuators are actually powered by japanese Denso? How many Harley -Davidson hardcore fans actually know that their bikes have japanese Showa forks?
No, pilots wouldn`t know. And the actual amount of chemicals on each ariplane is not that big, because the amount needed is not that big, because the biggest job is done by water in the air that binds the chemicals.
About cloud seeding- it is completely in open , you can check for yourself there are many companies countrywise that execute these projects, they have even stated the times and area of activities.

You are trying to compare a taxi driver to an airline pilot? The regulations governing airline pilots are far more well-defined by Federal and International regulations versus the state regulations used to govern the operation of a motor vehicle (which is essentially all a chauffer's license is). Airline pilots have to have intimate knowledge with regards to the operation of their aircraft for the same reason a ship's captian has to have the same intimate knowledge of their ships. When trouble occurs, you can't just pop into your local service station in the sky (or on the sea) for repairs.

-saige-
edit on 20-7-2012 by saige45 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by HIWATT
 


Maybe you should read though this thread.

What you say in your post is valid, but it proves nothing. Nobody said that this theory is too whacky to be true, we're all members on ATS here. What this discussion is about is evidence. You got any, or is it just your opinion?




top topics



 
69
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join