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.

 

I want to be a CHEMTRAIL DEBUNKER

page: 29
25
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
OK - well the 2nd one there is this page - which only shows drawings of a 747 and a twin engined aircraft that looks a lot like a 767. There's another link to the same article that is repeated on "Before its news"


Well there yuh have it, That is not a very reliable website for finding out the truth, now is it?


The next one that isn't contrail science or metabunk is this site that has a photo of a French Airforce C-135FR "Stratotanker" refueling pod.

If these are the ones you mean then they don't look like anything that "dwarfs any Jet Airliner" to me - they are all fairly regular jet airlienrs!


Calm down now, maybe they are not the ones that I have seen, and maybe those don't dwarf any jet liner, but the ones that I have seen above my head with my own two eyes do seem to be larger. Impossible to prove.


And they are all debunked for you on Contrail Science and Metabunk that you are now aware of


Opinions vary on that claim.


so you won't have to worry about any secret massive aircraft.


I don't spend much time worrying about things that are out of my control. I can however give my opinion on the matter, which is what we do here at ATS. ~$heopleNation



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SheopleNation
 


But I don't want you to even try to prove someone else's claims, I never asked that and it would be unreasonable of me to expect you to.

You said you believe in chemtrail, ok, then during the discussion you posted that there are chem planes that dwarf commercial planes, in response to my statement that there are not, you said there are images of them all over the internet. With me so far?

Well I've searched the internet using your suggested search and still haven't seen one. Your claim must surely be founded on having seen something specific, no? Bit you don't want to say where it is or post it for illustration purposes because "it is not in your best interest".

I have my own opinion of why you won't and in a way, its what you said.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I have my own opinion of why you won't and in a way, its what you said.


Actually it's as simple as not wanting to post a link to something that I cannot 100% verify as being an Aircraft that sprays chemtrails. Nothing more, nothing less my friend. ~$heopleNation



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SheopleNation

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
OK - well the 2nd one there is this page - which only shows drawings of a 747 and a twin engined aircraft that looks a lot like a 767. There's another link to the same article that is repeated on "Before its news"


Well there yuh have it, That is not a very reliable website for finding out the truth, now is it?



Indeed - so you won't have to bother being mistaken about it again if you don't want to.

and although you say that opinions about debunking differ clearly you are no longer fooled by this particular piece of disinfo - so in this instance, at least, you apparently agree that this article is debunked.

also perhaps a lesson - rather than saying that things "are" can I suggest that you say "some places claim..."

also nowhere on that page does it actually claim that any chemtrail or other aircraft are any biger than any jet airliners as you did - it is a good idea to make sure your own claims ARE actually supported by your sources.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
As you are asking, two mistaken assumptions you made that spring to mind is that normal commercial aircraft don't leave trails in grid patterns and that you can look at a plane from the ground against nothing but sky and know how big it is.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SheopleNation

Originally posted by waynos
I have my own opinion of why you won't and in a way, its what you said.


Actually it's as simple as not wanting to post a link to something that I cannot 100% verify as being an Aircraft that sprays chemtrails. Nothing more, nothing less my friend. ~$heopleNation


So why tell someone else to go search the web for it as an illustration of what you were talking about? That makes no sense. Either the images show what you saw, or else why even bring them into the conversation in the first place. Your evasion is getting beyond silly and I think this discussion is redundant.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SheopleNation


Actually it's as simple as not wanting to post a link to something that I cannot 100% verify as being an Aircraft that sprays chemtrails. Nothing more, nothing less my friend. ~$heopleNation


If you think it is important then IMO you are much better off posting a link and asking people what it is rather than making claims about what it says and then refusing to reveal the basis of those claims.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

If you guys want to see a persistent contrail ("Chemtrail") at ground level, here is one a bit after the five minute mark...



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
also perhaps a lesson - rather than saying that things "are" can I suggest that you say "some places claim..."


Well, I did not request a lesson from you, but I came to that realization last night just like I mentioned earlier.


also nowhere on that page does it actually claim that any chemtrail or other aircraft are any biger than any jet airliners as you did


I never said that you would find any actual claims there. What I said was that what I seen with my own two eyes seemed to be larger Aircraft. Again, pretty much impossible to verify.


it is a good idea to make sure your own claims ARE actually supported by your sources.


Thank you. Yeah, that can easily end up being a hole that one digs himself into so deep that it becomes very hard to climb out. Nobody enjoys that.

I do respect your opinion here. You and I agree on more than we disagree about here at ATS. ~$heopleNation
edit on 7-3-2013 by SheopleNation because: TypO



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


I don't think you sould be asked to prove how you are or your work history.
you did and thats commendable.

very good Sir.........................Painfulhead



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Thank you for the reply. You wrote this: I can answer some of that, but not all. You're asking for some really silly stuff that I'd be utterly insane to post on a public forum.

What is silly about asking you to prove your statement when We are all required to do so.

You have typed some words but gave not one peice of proof, not even one.

here is what happen for those who have a problem with equal consideration.


Originally posted by defcon5
Evergreen does fly lots of stuff, and they contract for lots of people. I've worked on their aircraft many times over the years. However, they are subject to the same rules that apply to all air traffic, which means that they would be unable to hide such activity.


Originally posted by fireyaguns
reply to post by defcon5
 


You are doubted.


Another claim to working in the field. Evergreen you say, please provide some proof of your claim because just saying "LOOK I worked there" or "I saw it" and so on is delusion wouldn't you agree.



Originally posted by fireyaguns
reply to post by defcon5
 


Maybe you have your time sheets and login dates, payslips, bank statements, the aeroplanes you worked on and how often, other workers you worked besides , your bosses name, what your job discipline was and what you actually did do.

I hope you will be kind enough to reply honourably.


Any records what so ever to back your claim?



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Painfulhead
reply to post by defcon5
 


I don't think you sould be asked to prove how you are or your work history.
you did and thats commendable.

very good Sir.........................Painfulhead



Painfulhead, proof is a very strong word, he proved nothing at all, absolutely zero.
Not one single record.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by fireyaguns
 


My feeling is that no matter what he writes it will not be “Poof “ of any thing other then a member replying to your post. I would love to believe Defcon and have no reason to think he would fabricate a work history to help make a point. That being said I have no way to know he wouldn’t... either way it helps the discussion very little.
Thanks………………. Painfulhead



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


I have seen this video in many “Chem” threads and yes it does show exactly what is said. A low level contrail. This example is not one that helps me to form a conclusion.
Thanks ……………………Painfulhead
edit on 7-3-2013 by Painfulhead because: removal of extra 'I'

edit on 7-3-2013 by Painfulhead because: same as above



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 12:40 AM
link   
I would like to provide some more info for your consideration. Remember that this is just an overview announcement article. The exact specifics of the actual study are not disclosed and could potentially utilize and encompass other alternative fuels and addidtives that are not mentioned in this article.

Notice the choice of picture NASA decided to use for this page.




Link

March 5, 2013
By Michael Braukus,
NASA Headquarters

WASHINGTON -- NASA researchers have begun a series of flights using the agency's DC-8 flying laboratory to study the effects of alternate biofuel on engine performance, emissions and aircraft-generated contrails at altitude.

The Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails and Cruise Emissions (ACCESS) research involves flying the DC-8 as high as 40,000 feet while an instrumented NASA Falcon HU-25 aircraft trails behind at distances ranging from 300 feet to more than 10 miles.

"We believe this study will improve understanding of contrails formation and quantify potential benefits of renewable alternate fuels in terms of aviation's impact on the environment," said Ruben Del Rosario, manager of NASA's Fixed Wing Project.

ACCESS flight operations are being staged from NASA's Dryden Aircraft Operations Facility in Palmdale, Calif., and will take place mostly within restricted airspace over Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.

During the flights, the DC-8's four CFM56 engines will be powered by conventional JP-8 jet fuel, or a 50-50 blend of JP-8 and an alternative fuel of hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids that comes from camelina plants.




Now, take a look at this document. Please notice phase 2 of this proposal.

A Framework to Prevent the Catastrophic Effects of Global
Warming using Solar Radiation Management (Geo-Engineering)



5. Proposed Timeline

This Framework contemplates a five phase approach that would likely achieve its objective of guaranteeing prevention of catastrophic sea level rise within five years.

Phase I – Laboratory Research and Institutional Development: A consortium to include the national leaders in SRM, would conduct preliminary research and technical development work and draft a detailed plan to accomplish the necessary pilot scale testing of SRM, to include funding requirements. The ideal leader of this consortium would be Professor Wood (with significant assistance by Professor Caldeira and his colleagues), and would include institutional experts such as Professor Barrett at Johns Hopkins. Most physical research would involve laboratory scale physics and chemistry, as well as computer simulations, modeling, and analyses of the kind routinely conducted by climate scientists today. Simultaneously, the institutional research branch would identify alternative means to regulate and manage SRM use, to include formation of a specific objective such as presented in the first Element above. The plan would include a detailed proposal for formation of a control institution to test and regulate the use of SRM. The plan would ideally be reviewed and accepted by experts from a very wide spectrum of relevant disciplines (18 months, $3.5 million estimated).

Phase II: Careful real world testing of subscale versions of SRM at gradually increasing scales to verify any remaining questions and development of revised implementation plan; appointment and organization of the SRM control organization (18 months).

Phase III: Review research results and propose and take comment on an SRM schedule of events. This would be the first major action of the international SRM control body. It would include a reexamination of the objective to ensure adequate global support (18 months).

Phase IV: Solar Radiation Management (SRM) begins under international control through the SRM control body. Implementation would be transparent and would include continuing monitoring and reporting of physical effects as well as and semi-annual plan revisions based on new information gained. Full SRM for the geographic area selected/world would be realized within weeks of full implementation. Note that if the quantities are correctly selected, it would be possible to design SRM so that no further warming of the area selected/world would occur after that time regardless of other climatic events as long as an appropriate level of particles is maintained.

Phase V: Maintenance of SRM system based on continued comparisons between objectives (element 1 above) and actual achievements. The SRM program, if effective, would be expected to continue until no longer needed (when greenhouse gases are adequately controlled), and could be expected to remain in place for a century



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 


Now take a look at this patent. It will help you understand why certain chemicals are released in our atmosphere. In this case barium is used to illuminate and study geomagnetic field lines in our atmosphere.

This particular case utilizes a rocket propelled system to transport the barium release system. But I would suggest that other methods of delivery can be and are used when the need arises to place the barium in specific locations at lower altitudes.

BARIUM RELEASE SYSTEM


The invention described herein was made in the performance of work under a NASA contract and is subject to the provisions of section 305 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, Public Law 85-568 (72 Stat. 435; 42 USC 2457).

This invention relates generally to a chemical release system and relates in particular to a system for releasing barium in the vapor phase so that it can be ionized by solar radiation and also be excited to emit resonance radiation in the visible range. The ionized luminous cloud of barium then becomes a visible indication of magnetic and electric characteristics in space and allows determination of these properties over relatively large areas of space at a given time compared to rocket borne or orbiting instruments. For example, a geomagnetic field line could be illuminated by the present invention from pole-to-pole.

Presently, barium release systems are used to create ion clouds in the upper atmosphere for the study of geophysical properties of the atmosphere.



Here is a document from 1970 discussing the use of contrails for weather modification.

ON THE POSSIBILITY OF WEATHER MODIFICATION BY AIRCRAFT CONTRAILS


The possible effect of contrails in modifying the weather is reconsidered in the light of information obtained from ground-level contrails in Alaska. It appears likely that inadvertent cloud seeding by jet aircraft may be of the same order of magnitude as that attained in commercial cloud seeding operations. Further investigation is needed; but in the meantime, the possibility of contrail contamination should be kept in mind when evaluating the results of seeding operations.

edit on 8-3-2013 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
25
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join