Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New Chemtrail vids: Close-ups of full wing spraying

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
How do you know that there is more traffic? Are you under the impression that you can see every flight that passes over you? This would be a mistake. Do you think that the reason you believe there is more traffic could be because an approaching weather front (the one that brought the storm) created the conditions whereby all, or at
least more, of the flights overhead produced visible trails, and under normal weather conditions most of them pass unnoticed?

If you have a smartphone you can download a Flightradar 24 app that will let you track flights, if you zoom out a little you may be surprised to see just how many aircraft there really are in the sky.

In your previous post you referred to the difference between chem and contrails. Do you understand why this is not actually correct?


Now aren't you a quick one to attack? For all you questions please refer to my previous post. Yes anecdotal evidence is just that.

If you see a persisting trail stretching right across the sky, have you ever considered what volume of material a plane would need to carry in order to create a visible trail that looked like that from a minimum of 7 miles away (right above your head) and hundreds of miles across the sky? Contrails are truly vast and when you see a plane do something like a fuel dump its over in seconds and quickly vanishes.
edit on 1-8-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)







Now aren't you the quickie responder.
edit on 1-8-2012 by missvicky because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by missvicky

Having said all that.... now if one of these "scientists" can expalin to me that after years of normal air traffic cons or chems aside...that suddenly there is a constant level of air traffic that is over and above normal;


How have you measured air traffic to determine what is normal, and what is the measure now that is "not normal"?


that is flying not only tandem but across, forming a grid like pattern ( how how would I know it's a grid like pattern?


On the Pacific coast - well you have a heap of air traffic going north/south up & down the coast, and also a lot of air traffic heading out over the Pacific to Asia & Hawaii & the South Pacific - so of course the trails cross and form grids - how could they NOT do so??




Because of the spraying that lingered in the air waiting for the coastal winds to push it all east) ; and this sudden increase in air traffic lasted all day and ONLY that day.


Which sort of implies that he conditions were right for a lot of contrails on just that day


Interestingly enough, a few days after seeing this constant spraying, there were some devestating storms on the East Coast. Coinkydinky?


No, not coinkydink at all - contrails are cirrus cloud, the conditions for cirrus clouds often occur ahead of fronts - cirrus cloud has been a sea-farer's indication of forthcoming storms for hundreds of years.

You seem to think that he contrails cause storms - but in fact the reverse is true - the storm is creating conditions for contrails ahead of it.


I believe "scientists" like I believe in the cupacabra....may or may not be fact. But I DO believe my own "lieing eyes".


I bet your "lying eyes" do not tell you the chemical composition of the tails you see, do they? Nor do they tell you the temperature and humidity levels at 30-40,000 feet?
edit on 1-8-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynosIf you have a smartphone you can download a Flightradar 24 app that will let you track flights,


And if you see a 24 kilometer long and 70 meter wide airplane spraying stuff with no mode S transponder operative there's fishy business going on.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by missvicky

Having said all that.... now if one of these "scientists" can expalin to me that after years of normal air traffic cons or chems aside...that suddenly there is a constant level of air traffic that is over and above normal;


How have you measured air traffic to determine what is normal, and what is the measure now that is "not normal"?


that is flying not only tandem but across, forming a grid like pattern ( how how would I know it's a grid like pattern?


On the Pacific coast - well you have a heap of air traffic going north/south up & down the coast, and also a lot of air traffic heading out over the Pacific to Asia & Hawaii & the South Pacific - so of course the trails cross and form grids - how could they NOT do so??




Because of the spraying that lingered in the air waiting for the coastal winds to push it all east) ; and this sudden increase in air traffic lasted all day and ONLY that day.


Which sort of implies that he conditions were right for a lot of contrails on just that day


Interestingly enough, a few days after seeing this constant spraying, there were some devestating storms on the East Coast. Coinkydinky?


No, not coinkydink at all - contrails are cirrus cloud, the conditions for cirrus clouds often occur ahead of fronts - cirrus cloud has been a sea-farer's indication of forthcoming storms for hundreds of years.

You seem to think that he contrails cause storms - but in fact the reverse is true - the storm is creating conditions for contrails ahead of it.


I believe "scientists" like I believe in the cupacabra....may or may not be fact. But I DO believe my own "lieing eyes".


I bet your "lying eyes" do not tell you the chemical composition of the tails you see, do they? Nor do they tell you the temperature and humidity levels at 30-40,000 feet?
edit on 1-8-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



You are all so quick to try to intimidate me with "scientific fact". You challenge every aspect of my observation with "did you ever consider..." when no I didn't consider anything at all other than it was an extremely increased amount of VISIBLE air traffic, and i don't have to consider anything at all other than sharing an OBSERVATION.
Have you ever considered that you don't live where I do? And if you did how much are you able to observe WITH YOUR OWN EYES without relying on "scientific facts"?



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by missvicky

Now aren't you the quickie responder.


I'm so sorry that I happened to be online before I go to work when you posted, I didn't realise that waiting a few hours would make a difference


Does this mean you are not even willing to consider anything I said?


You are all so quick to try to intimidate me with "scientific fact". You challenge every aspect of my observation with "did you ever consider..." when no I didn't consider anything at all other than it was an extremely increased amount of VISIBLE air traffic, and i don't have to consider anything at all other than sharing an OBSERVATION.
Have you ever considered that you don't live where I do? And if you did how much are you able to observe WITH YOUR OWN EYES without relying on "scientific facts"?


I'm sorry you find 'scientific facts'intimidating, I thought you posted your observations on a discussion board in order to discuss them. Thats kind of what it's here for. Obviously I don't live where you live, that's why they were questions not statements.

As for simply relying on your eyes, when you see a car driving along do your eyes tell you how it's doing it? Or do you just see it moving but happen to know the scientific fact that it has a combustion engine and gearbox in it?
edit on 1-8-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by missvicky
 


But...scientific fact is the ONLY tool we have to understand things. Your eyes cant determine conditions, temperature, pressure, height, composition etc of the trails being formed. Your eyes dont know that cirrus clouds form this way or that way. if you only used your eyes for knowledge then what would you say of a solar eclipse? That some giant demon was blocking out the sun?

Science is the pursuit of FACT and common sense or "what you think" has no place there.

I understand that you are totally desperate to believe, but you are coming across as an idiot by saying you trust your eyes more than science.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by missvicky
You are all so quick to try to intimidate me with "scientific fact".


I am sorry you find "scientific fact" intimidating - for me it is educational and intersting.


You challenge every aspect of my observation with "did you ever consider..." when no I didn't consider anything at all other than it was an extremely increased amount of VISIBLE air traffic, and i don't have to consider anything at all other than sharing an OBSERVATION.


But you did make conclusions based on those observations, and when making observations it is important to consider what it is you are actually observing, what assumptions you are making, and many other factors.

already you heve changed your reporting a little - you have added the word "visible" to "air traffic" - which si a perfectly reasonable qualifier, and of course completely changes the meaning of what you wrote.



Have you ever considered that you don't live where I do? And if you did how much are you able to observe WITH YOUR OWN EYES without relying on "scientific facts"?


What I observe is always without "scientific facts" - I see a whiet line across the sky - ther is no "Scientific fact" in the observation. Or I see a plane or a train or an automobile - there are no "scientific facts" there either. Observation is fine.

But when you draw a conclusions from what you observe yuo are using more than just the observation itself. you are using a raft of background knowledge to interpret what you see and decide what it is you aer observing.

You see a car driving along the road - you can be reasonably sure (depending upong the model!) that it has an internal combustion engine in it burning petrol or diesel - even though you cannot actually observe the engine or the combustion process. you conclude this because that is what is the most common form of propulsion system for cars, because you knwo that the model yuo can see is not an electric car, because science has created those engines, designed and built the cars, etc.

Simlarly when you or I see a white line across the sky we make a decision about what we think it is. almost all my life I have seen contrails, and i have worked on those aircraft as a mechanic that I saw make contrails when I was a child. I have sen contrails in movies made by bombers in WW2, I have read accounts of contrails made by other aircraft since the final days of WW1. I have read some science about contrail formation and what combustion of kerosene creates by way of by products.

And from that I deduce that white lines across eth skies that look like contrails, that are created in the manner contrails are known to be created, that behave like contrails and for which there is no actual evidence that they are anything other than contrails, are therefore contrails.

Like being sure that the car has a combustion engine, I do not actually have to measure every finite element in the process of contrail creation to be satisfied that the contrail is a contrail.

OTOH, as I understand it, some people think these are not contrails, because they are afraid of the Govt or the NWO or big business "spraying" something in the sky. Now I have no probelm with being afraid or suspicious of that - if I thought it was happening I would be too.

But there is simply no credible evidence it is happening.

Again - if stating that intimidates you then I am sorry you feel that way - but the solution to that lies with you, not with me.

edit on 1-8-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
I'm a magnet for those who would like to keep truths hidden..........nothing more complicated than that.

Wow.


This is the most disingenuous comment I have seen on this thread so far, and there have been many. After all the untruths that you have put forth in this thread, it is baffling to see you claim that is is others who are keeping the truth hidden.

Here are just some of the things you have stated as fact that have either been overwhelmingly proven false or at least entirely lacking in a logical or factual basis.


Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Here are some great shots of a typical chemtrail set-up, this has only one purpose, and is not used for fighting fires or aerial refueling or anything else:
False

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Also, the nozzle coming from the jet engine nacelle is something unique
False

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
The KC - 135 has a refueling arm extending from the rear, not small jets from the wings,
False

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Trust me buddy, these may look like refueling drogues, but they are not.
False


Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Those are photoshopped or just staged pictures, those lightweight, tiny lines would never connect with the refueling nozzle of jets, the nozzle would just push them around.
Entirely lacking logic and evidence, considering the overwhelming evidence of the use of flexible wing pod refueling.


Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
the higher contrail is just water vapor acting as you would expect, but the lower trails are metal oxides - which are obviously not absorbed into air like water vapor.
Your explanation ignores the well known fact that relative humidity can vary throughout the entire range of altitudes. Therefore it is lacking in factual basis.

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Most ice crystals, especially in warmer seasons, would stop growing as they reached lower altitudes and the air temperature went above 0C/32F and would melt - which is why we get rain instead of snow in the summer and why hail is extremely rare, or at least used to be. You example only makes sense in winter time.
Lacking in factual basis, The example explained to you can happen any time the conditions permit, which in many places can occur in all seasons of the year, even if it is more common in some seasons.


Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Water vapor should form where it's high and the air is colder and the air can't hold as much moisture, and dissipate lower where the air is warmer and can hold more moisture.
Lacking in factual basis.


Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
However the lower chemtrail does not dissipate even close to as quickly as the higher one - going against all known meteorology - and only theoretically possible in some kind of weird and extremely rare temperature inversion.
Lacking in factual basis. And that is not even all of the untruths you have told in this thread, there is at least one other that I shall discuss shortly.

If it weren't for those who you claim " would like to keep truths hidden", there would be an incredible amount of falsities and unfounded statements being touted as the truth in this thread. The reason you are a magnet to the people who dare to question your unfounded claims is because some of us don't want lies and mistruths portrayed as fact for those who are trying to inform themselves on the topic. Nothing more complicated than that.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
These two videos contain some great close ups of chemtrails spraying from planes

This is the initial premise in this thread, and much like most of your claims, it is lacking in factual basis. There has been zero evidence put forth to show that any large airliner has sprayers along the entire length of it's wing to produce the effect seen in the videos. However, there are other explanations that you haven't even considered. Yet from the outset you have attempted to ridicule anyone who even questions your drivel, by preemptively claiming that they have "trouble with reality" or "some kind of agenda".

It has been shown to you that the videos show exactly the characteristics of aerodynamic contrails. We know that the formation of aerodynamic contrails is an entirely plausible explanation for the effects observed. We know why they form, due to our knowledge of water and how it behaves with varying pressure, temperature, and humidity throughout our atmosphere.

We know that water condenses when the pressure of the surrounding air is reduced. This can occur at low altitudes when the air is sufficiently humid, and the effect can be observed directly. An aircraft will create areas of low pressure to varying degrees depending on many factors such as speed, angle of attack, bank angle, wing geometry, and variation of flight control surfaces such as flaps, ailerons and rudders. Here are some examples.





The "clouds" you see over the wings and in the wingtip vortices are due to water condensing in the low pressure regions created by the aircraft. This can also occur at high altitudes where the air is very cold, so the water which condenses freezes almost instantly. If the air is relatively humid, the ice crystals will not melt instantly, just like ice crystals in natural cirrus clouds, leaving a visible trail. Here are some examples already presented in this thread.


We know that aerodynamic contrails can occur. Yet you're still promoting the unfounded claim that the exact same effect can only be produced by some kind of sprayer along the entire length of the wing. That is disingenuous.

It is no coincidence that you often see contrails when natural cirrus cloud are present, as they require very similar conditions to persist. It is also no suprise that there are natural cirrus formations present in the first video you posted. It is actually rather saddening to see the guy filming the video looking at the natural cirrus formation and saying things like "Oh my god. It's all falling out of the sky", "that's nasty", and "there's nowhere to run, there's nowhere to hide". I genuinely feel sorry for someone who is so afraid of water due to being misled by people disseminating false information such as yourself.

Luckily there are many people on this forum who take their time to provide the information that you have deliberately ignored in your attempt to mislead the readers of your posts.
edit on 1/8/12 by Curious and Concerned because: missing [ and "



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Very good post, very well written


I am similarly dismayed when I read posts from people who say they can't understand why the existence of chemtrails is even up for debate, they have become so convinced by all the lies and misunderstanding that they accept all supposed evidence without question. It should always be up for debate, one day real evidence may emerge of a genuine operation and someone should be looking for it. Hopefully that will be someone with the necessary faculties to recognise it and not just people scared of water.
edit on 2-8-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 

Thanks


It is unfortunate that some of the posters on this board have such ridiculous double standards when it comes to "proof". For some people it seems that anything from a chemtrail site (even the sites demanding your money!) is regarded as the absolute truth, requiring only faith in the loosely defined chemtrail theory to believe, and should not ever be questioned. Yet everything else can simply be denied or ignored with statements like "those are photoshopped", "You're a paid disinfo agent shill", or "I don't believe in science".


I've had a deep interest in aviation since a very young age, and like to keep informed with what is occurring within the industry. If there were any plausible evidence that indicates that a massive chemtrail conspiracy is taking place, I would be up in arms with all the other 'chemmies'. The evidence put forth in this thread has been woefully inadequate at proving this, like most of the evidence used to promote chemtrails. I am glad some people are asking questions, but it's sad that some refuse to listen to the answers.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


What's even sadder is that even in the face of complete and total evidence that certain structures are refueling lines some still think they are sinister poison dropping apparatus.

Which brings me to my point.. Some can find a conspiracy in an empty paper bag and when that starts to happen everything is a conspiracy to do harm to everyone, and you eventually get so caught up in worrying about (insert doom and gloom here) that you forget that you are alive and have a life to live, you forget that you may have a family or if you don't you irreparably damage your children into being paranoid as well, which causes them to withdraw and become depressed and then we see unfortunately, kids committing suicide because they have been taught that there's no hope and every government agency is evil and the world is about to blow up...

Healthy skepticism is one thing, complete and total belief that everything is awful or evil is unhealthy...



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos

Originally posted by missvicky

Now aren't you the quickie responder.


I'm so sorry that I happened to be online before I go to work when you posted, I didn't realise that waiting a few hours would make a difference


Does this mean you are not even willing to consider anything I said?


You are all so quick to try to intimidate me with "scientific fact". You challenge every aspect of my observation with "did you ever consider..." when no I didn't consider anything at all other than it was an extremely increased amount of VISIBLE air traffic, and i don't have to consider anything at all other than sharing an OBSERVATION.
Have you ever considered that you don't live where I do? And if you did how much are you able to observe WITH YOUR OWN EYES without relying on "scientific facts"?


I'm sorry you find 'scientific facts'intimidating, I thought you posted your observations on a discussion board in order to discuss them. Thats kind of what it's here for. Obviously I don't live where you live, that's why they were questions not statements.

As for simply relying on your eyes, when you see a car driving along do your eyes tell you how it's doing it? Or do you just see it moving but happen to know the scientific fact that it has a combustion engine and gearbox in it?
edit on 1-8-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by missvicky

Originally posted by waynos
How do you know that there is more traffic? Are you under the impression that you can see every flight that passes over you? This would be a mistake. Do you think that the reason you believe there is more traffic could be because an approaching weather front (the one that brought the storm) created the conditions whereby all, or at
least more, of the flights overhead produced visible trails, and under normal weather conditions most of them pass unnoticed?

If you have a smartphone you can download a Flightradar 24 app that will let you track flights, if you zoom out a little you may be surprised to see just how many aircraft there really are in the sky.

In your previous post you referred to the difference between chem and contrails. Do you understand why this is not actually correct?


Now aren't you a quick one to attack? For all you questions please refer to my previous post. Yes anecdotal evidence is just that.

If you see a persisting trail stretching right across the sky, have you ever considered what volume of material a plane would need to carry in order to create a visible trail that looked like that from a minimum of 7 miles away (right above your head) and hundreds of miles across the sky? Contrails are truly vast and when you see a plane do something like a fuel dump its over in seconds and quickly vanishes.
edit on 1-8-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)







Now aren't you the quickie responder.
edit on 1-8-2012 by missvicky because: (no reason given)


I am simply referring to my own "lying eyes" of which I happen to believe since I saw this episode with them.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by missvicky

Having said all that.... now if one of these "scientists" can expalin to me that after years of normal air traffic cons or chems aside...that suddenly there is a constant level of air traffic that is over and above normal;


How have you measured air traffic to determine what is normal, and what is the measure now that is "not normal"?


that is flying not only tandem but across, forming a grid like pattern ( how how would I know it's a grid like pattern?


On the Pacific coast - well you have a heap of air traffic going north/south up & down the coast, and also a lot of air traffic heading out over the Pacific to Asia & Hawaii & the South Pacific - so of course the trails cross and form grids - how could they NOT do so??




Because of the spraying that lingered in the air waiting for the coastal winds to push it all east) ; and this sudden increase in air traffic lasted all day and ONLY that day.


Which sort of implies that he conditions were right for a lot of contrails on just that day


Interestingly enough, a few days after seeing this constant spraying, there were some devestating storms on the East Coast. Coinkydinky?


No, not coinkydink at all - contrails are cirrus cloud, the conditions for cirrus clouds often occur ahead of fronts - cirrus cloud has been a sea-farer's indication of forthcoming storms for hundreds of years.

You seem to think that he contrails cause storms - but in fact the reverse is true - the storm is creating conditions for contrails ahead of it.


I believe "scientists" like I believe in the cupacabra....may or may not be fact. But I DO believe my own "lieing eyes".


I bet your "lying eyes" do not tell you the chemical composition of the tails you see, do they? Nor do they tell you the temperature and humidity levels at 30-40,000 feet?
edit on 1-8-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



I wonder at your attack with your weapons of "scientific tools with which to measure anything" as a response to an event the (my) human eye observed ( which science canot yet replicate mechanically ...unless you would like to share that breaking news here and be lauded Hero Whistleblower of the day). I stand by what I saw and your ridiculous challenges are just that: ridiculous.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
irregardless of the fact the tanker identity in the video can't be determined.

My other question is, now why would a small region in France own KC-135 tankers? Wouldn't any NATO committments etc be handled by the French air force?


The identity of the tanker can be determined. French Air Force KC-135FR coded 93-CC

The badge is simply a Group marking within the French Air Force.

www.defense.gouv.fr...

fr.wikipedia.org...

Link to French Air Force webpage



See following video from 06:03. It shows a French C-135F tanker deploying the hose from the MK-32 wing pods for Mirage 2000s to refuel from.



The subject was already discussed some months previously by HA. See my post with links to further information.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 8-8-2012 by tommyjo because: Additional info added



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by missvicky

I wonder at your attack with your weapons of "scientific tools with which to measure anything" as a response to an event the (my) human eye observed ( which science canot yet replicate mechanically ...unless you would like to share that breaking news here and be lauded Hero Whistleblower of the day). I stand by what I saw and your ridiculous challenges are just that: ridiculous.


What challenge?

I do not doubt you saw what you saw.

But I also do not doubt that your eyes are not capable of measuring chemical content, altitude, humidity or temperature.

"Scientific tools" can do that - but not eyes.

So again - I do not doubt what you saw - what I doubt is your conclusion about what it was, because your eyes aer not capable of telling you the information required to make that conclusion, and because what HAS been measured and what IS known about phenomena like what you saw has always been something else.









 
11
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join