Meteorologist Decodes Chemtrails and Weather Manipulation

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SolarIce
 


Ok, I'll rewatch the video and point out which parts I disagree with, which were the ones that made me want to check his credentials, but it's very late now so I'll have a go at it tomorrow as I'm retiring for the night.




posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SolarIce
reply to post by totallackey
 


What is your problem? You don't know what kind of research this guy DID OUTSIDE of school. He may not of completed a course, but he damn sure can use the internet to attain knowledge on ANYTHING.


You are absolutely correct. I have no clue as to what research this guy did outside of school. Do you? If you are unprepared to present any additional evidence for his research credentials, or until he does provide additional research credentials, we will let the current record speak for itself. Does that sound like a reasonable approach?


I really am starting to hate this forum, you can't disprove it,so please don't ask someone to prove something.

There's something up with the skies and these freaking disinfo are not going to work much longer. The hackers will come out of hiding..


Ah....there is the proverbial "rub." I can disprove it. He is NOT a meteorologist. That is a proven fact. He has admitted he is not a meteorologist. His admission resulted in his firing from his job. Odds are:
!) Since a weatherman DOES NOT NEED to be a meteorologist (as all they do is present weather related information to the public), if he was "more of a meteorologist than the average person walking down the street," he might still have a job; and,
2) Meteorologists, are for the most part, average people. Just like every other profession.

So, I just DISPROVED your argumentation, even though I did not need to according to the rules of debate.

The only thing up with the skies is the skies...They are generally "up." Now, if the sky was down...it is time to HEAD TO THE HILLS!!!

I suggest this reading for you.

eleaston.com...
edit on 3-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SolarIce
 

Okay....I will anxiously await Mr. Stevens' provision of the humidity data from the radiosond balloons...the rotten bastard left me on the hook...I was REALLY REALLY waiting for that...the man essentially stated he COULD GUARANTEE if he went to the data center just down the road, the humidity level readouts would NOT be over 40 percent at altitude...Well, I am still waiting for the readouts...WHERE ARE THEY!?!?!
edit on 3-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
As far as the article from the guardian is concerned, the article clearly states the word "future." And I do believe all of the debate over AGW is primarily BULL COOKIES designed to make the rich richer and it has been since the time of the 70's...The Mob made a killing over catalytic converters and Waste Management...that is how they became LEGIT!!!

Personal opinion? I think we all should stop screwing around with it...

Yeah, we put out pollutants. Yeah, nobody likes it.

But in general, the air quality is better than it was 40-50 years ago, and we are making progress.
edit on 3-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


Okay I didn't read any of what you wrote, but that's because I was in the wrong. Forgive me I don't have any information on this guy or the claims made in this thread. \

Wish you hadn't wasted that time replying to my silly remarks. I'm just simply going through a bit IRL and it has taken a toll on me, but to attack others on this amazing forum is not the right thing to do.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 




Okay, exactly how can we know? What are the criteria?


Your question: how can we tell a chemtrail from a contrail?

Well...we could start out complicated, like Scott Stevens in the video did, and find out that humidity levels are not high enough to support persistent contrails. But he has a lot of knowledge of weather and non-weather Janes & Joes don't, so best to start with observation.

Contrail vs Chemtrail 101



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus
 




Okay, exactly how can we know? What are the criteria?


Your question: how can we tell a chemtrail from a contrail?

Well...we could start out complicated, like Scott Stevens in the video did, and find out that humidity levels are not high enough to support persistent contrails.

Funny...I AM STILL WAITING ON THE HUMIDITY DATA!!! Yeah, he made the claim the humidity levels were not high enough to support persistent contrails; HOWEVER, when it came time to PONY UP with the data readouts from the radiosond, SCOTTY WENT TO POTTY!!!

But he has a lot of knowledge of weather and non-weather Janes & Joes don't, so best to start with observation.
Contrail vs Chemtrail 101

No, he does not. This guy is full of beans and and a huckster.
ETA: Your video is lacking several bits of information. One, there is zero data to demonstrate the time the first contrail was made. Two, we have no idea of the differences in altitude of the planes that made the contrails. Three, there is no indication of what the weather was at the altitudes of the planes during contrail formation.
edit on 4-8-2012 by totallackey because: further content



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SolarIce
reply to post by totallackey
 


Okay I didn't read any of what you wrote, but that's because I was in the wrong. Forgive me I don't have any information on this guy or the claims made in this thread. \

Wish you hadn't wasted that time replying to my silly remarks. I'm just simply going through a bit IRL and it has taken a toll on me, but to attack others on this amazing forum is not the right thing to do.


Okay. Who is attacking others? I am pointing out the guy has falsified PERSONAL information. That is NOT an attack. If I did that, I would expect the SAME treatment. Once you falsify personal information, all bets are off...especially information of an IMPERSONAL nature...

This asshat is sucking in money at the expense of peoples' FEAR and he needs to be SHUT DOWN now...



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


lol no I meant I shouldn't attack others on this forum...should have made myself more clear.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus
 




Okay, exactly how can we know? What are the criteria?


Your question: how can we tell a chemtrail from a contrail?

Well...we could start out complicated, like Scott Stevens in the video did, and find out that humidity levels are not high enough to support persistent contrails. But he has a lot of knowledge of weather and non-weather Janes & Joes don't, so best to start with observation.

Contrail vs Chemtrail 101


But that video simply shows short contrails and persistent spreading contrails.

How do you tell the difference between chemtrails and persistent spreading contrails.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


Dear Overuse of CAPs:



HOWEVER, when it came time to PONY UP with the data readouts from the radiosond, SCOTTY WENT TO POTTY!!!


The average Joe and Jane, like me, are not interested in 'radiosond', whatever it is. Obviously Scott Stevens, in the OP video, knows about this and you SEEM to know as well, but for our purposes, average Jane and Joe purposes, looking up is a crucial step. We are either familiar with the activity in the sky (seen it all of our lives) or we're not.

Airline Passengers Told To Lower Shades During Chemtrail Spraying



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by totallackey
 


Dear Overuse of CAPs:



HOWEVER, when it came time to PONY UP with the data readouts from the radiosond, SCOTTY WENT TO POTTY!!!


The average Joe and Jane, like me, are not interested in 'radiosond', whatever it is. Obviously Scott Stevens, in the OP video, knows about this and you SEEM to know as well, but for our purposes, average Jane and Joe purposes, looking up is a crucial step. We are either familiar with the activity in the sky (seen it all of our lives) or we're not.

Airline Passengers Told To Lower Shades During Chemtrail Spraying


That's funny. It's as if he's never been on a plane where passengers have been asked to lower their shades.

It happens all the time, so people can sleep, and so people can watch the film. Saying it's so people won't see the chemtrails is just silly.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





The average Joe and Jane, like me, are not interested in 'radiosond', whatever it is. Obviously Scott Stevens, in the OP video, knows about this and you SEEM to know as well, but for our purposes, average Jane and Joe purposes, looking up is a crucial step. We are either familiar with the activity in the sky (seen it all of our lives) or we're not.


Why is this not surprising?

As for radisondes...Now you will know what radiosonde is...


A radiosonde (Sonde is French and German for probe) is a unit for use in things such as weather balloons that measures various atmospheric parameters and transmits them to a fixed receiver. Radiosondes may operate at a radio frequency of 403 MHz or 1680 MHz and both types may be adjusted slightly higher or lower as required. A rawinsonde is a radiosonde that is designed to only measure wind speed and direction. Colloquially, rawinsondes are usually referred to as radiosondes.

Modern radiosondes measure or calculate the following variables:

Pressure
Altitude
Geographical position (Latitude/Longitude)
Temperature
Relative humidity
Wind (both wind speed and wind direction)
Cosmic ray readings at high altitude


en.wikipedia.org...

And again how can you tell the difference between a contrail and a so called chemtrails, because you say all you need to do is look up?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


I've heard of weather balloons. Who hasn't? There was a time when they were blamed for pretty much everything we saw in the skies dating back to the 1940's. I've noticed that Chinese lanterns get a lot of attention these days - maybe they have usurped the weather balloon supremacy?

So I'm starting to get the picture here of how Scott Stevens (and Carnicom before him) was able to determine that humidity levels were not high enough to support persistent contrails.

Weather Balloons


Twice a day, every day of the year, weather balloons are released simultaneously from almost 900 locations worldwide! This includes 92 released by the National Weather Service in the US and its territories. The balloon flights last for around 2 hours, can drift as far as 125 miles away, and rise up to over 100,000 ft. (about 20 miles) in the atmosphere!


An instrument called a radiosonde is attached to the balloon to measure pressure, temperature and relative humidity as it ascends up into the atmosphere.


A parachute, attached to the end of the balloon, allows the radiosonde to fall slowly to the ground at speeds less than 22 mph after the balloon bursts. Each radiosonde contains a mailing bag and instructions on what to do if you find one. About 20% of the 75,000 radiosondes sent up each year in the US are found and returned.


Funny...I thought there was satellite equipment that could do all of this and it seems so wasteful - only 20% of the radiosondes are ever actually returned. But wait...I guess anyone can send up a weather balloon and I guess they're not so hard to find as NOAA makes out.

Lifebeam Technology Club sends up a weather balloon


“Our GPS unit tracked the exact coordinates of our balloon’s longitude, latitude, altitude, and speed,” said Lee. “We used this data to find our popped balloon, and also used it to analyze the height as corresponding to what we recorded in our two camcorders.”


So there it is...people like me, who are not that thrilled with the accuracy of data from alphabet agencies, don't really have to rely on that data. There's a wy to check it. And a way to get around the gaping hole of the 80% never returned radiosonde lack of data.

(Still I have to wonder how the rest of those humidity figures get plugged in - the 80% that there is no data for.)

o.m.g., almost forgot to answer your question:



And again how can you tell the difference between a contrail and a so called chemtrails, because you say all you need to do is look up?


It's very important for an individual to go out and look up because the media, with their depiction of the skies, on TV, will not give a true indication. Here is a video that contrasts that very clearly. Look at the contrast between the skies that are shown on the TV weather broadcast and the true picture of what they actually look like.

Chemtrail Heatwave January 2012
edit on 4-8-2012 by luxordelphi because: add from o.m.g. on...



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


I really do not care if you are interested in the data readouts...Scott stated in his video he could, "GUARANTEE," the humidity data would not be 40 percent or otherwise sufficient enough to allow for persistent contrails. This jerk stated he would present the data and then did not present the data. He is a liar.

You are supporting a liar. What does that make you?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 




You are supporting a liar. What does that make you?


Remain calm. I do not call supporters of the bunk science of outrageously persistent contrails liars. I accept that a good percentage of them actually believe in this bunk. You, yourself, come under this umbrella, in my mind, until conclusively proven different. Further, I hope I have not stepped into a personal vendetta between you and Scott Stevens.

The facts are these:
1. NOAA allegedly releases 92 weather balloons twice a day.
2. NOAA allegedly only gets information from 20% of these: 18.5 twice a day.
3. The U.S. is a big country with a lot of climates and humidities.
4. I, personally, have never known or heard or read or heard rumors of anyone finding a NOAA radiosonde.
5. How exactly is officialdom putting out data on relative humidity over my head with this sparse data? Is my relative humidity just assumed to be the same as the nearest 'returned' radiosonde?

So who's lying? Where is the data to support your theory?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


There's a wy to check it. And a way to get around the gaping hole of the 80% never returned radiosonde lack of data.

You see that "radio" part of radiosonde?
The data is returned by radio. Recovery of the radiosonde is irrelevant.

Your own source (which you ignored)

A transmitter on the radiosonde sends the data back to tracking equipment on the ground every one to two seconds. By tracking the position of the radiosonde, we can also calculate wind speed and wind direction. The radiosonde is powered by a small battery.

www.srh.noaa.gov...
edit on 8/4/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well thankyou for that, Phage, and I guess that means that just about anybody can tune into that radio frequency and get that data...or is it encrypted? (DOD secrets?)

And since you're explaining stuff, please explain how 92 radiosondes calculate the humidity over my head?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Well thankyou for that, Phage, and I guess that means that just about anybody can tune into that radio frequency and get that data...or is it encrypted? (DOD secrets?)
Yup, anybody. 403MHz or 1680MHz, take your pick. Why would it be encrypted? It's weather data that's made freely available.


And since you're explaining stuff, please explain how 92 radiosondes calculate the humidity over my head?
Radiosondes do not calculate humidity, they measure it. If one goes over your head it will measure it. It doesn't take 92 radiosondes, just one. Lucky for you, Las Vegas has an upper air station.
VEF

Not really cold or humid enough for contrails. Your local webcams seem to indicate that too. But there is some afternoon convective activity producing some nice cumulus.
edit on 8/4/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





But wait...I guess anyone can send up a weather balloon and I guess they're not so hard to find as NOAA makes out.


You do understand they want them back because they reuse them...


About 20% of the 75,000 radiosondes sent up each year in the US are found and returned. These instruments are fixed and reused, saving the government money.


www.srh.noaa.gov...

And yes anyone can send them up, in fact here are a few places to purchase them....

www.amazon.com...

and here also...

www.doityourselfgadgets.com...





new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join