I want to be a CHEMTRAIL DEBUNKER, page 33

tsurfer2000h

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 06:48 AM

link

reply to post by waynos

what links seeing trails in the sky to ANY of the evidence that Chemtrail believers trust?

It is more like who and not what that links those lines in the sky to chemtrails...

LLinx

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 07:26 AM

link

reply to post by bluestorm

These "contrails" were put up there by three planes flying close in formation . What planes fly this close to eachother? Within the same minute the trail is being dissolved, and there flies a normal plane across their path (lower altitude) , with zero trails. I know contrails are suppose to develop in the higher altitudes, but I would guess the height of the trails to be a only a few hundred meters up... Are these DEFINITELY just contrails ?

network dude

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 07:57 AM

link

reply to post by LLinx

When you see two or three planes in that close of a formation, it's most likely military jets. It could even be Air Force One flying with it's two fighter escorts. But since they look like planes, and the white trails behind them look like contrails, and seem to be at the correct altitude, I would hazard a guess that yes, they are contrails.

neformore

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 08:04 AM

link

reply to post by LLinx

The first one could be a plane flying with escorts, a refuelling tanker with jets coming into fill up their tanks, a group of military transports flying in formation or even simply three jets on an established flightpath across the country.

With regard to the second picture, the visible plane is flying much lower than the other contrails, as is apparent by its visible size. Estimating the height of those trails is nigh on impossible - you have no fixed reference to work off and are looking upwards.

waynos

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 01:26 PM

link

Originally posted by LLinx
reply to post by bluestorm

These "contrails" were put up there by three planes flying close in formation . What planes fly this close to each ther?

Military types often fly in close formation, I tried zooming in on the image to see more closely but the resolution is too low, however they look like singular trails as might be left by fighter type jets as far as I can tell.

Within the same minute the trail is being dissolved

this is quite normal and is what is considered by many chemtrailers as the characteristic of a "normal" contrail, their concern being directed towards the ones that dont quickly dissolve.

and there flies a normal plane across their path (lower altitude) , with zero trails. I know contrails are suppose to develop in the higher altitudes, but I would guess the height of the trails to be a only a few hundred meters up... Are these DEFINITELY just contrails ?

They certainly appear to be so. I would be wary of trying to guess the height of the trails from the ground, it is completely impossible to do this with any sort of accuracy. As you say, the other plane is lower and leaving no trail. When I have tracked and photographed flights whilst investigating this I photographed something similar which turned to show a plane at 14,000ft leaving no trails while flight over 30,000ft did so.

There is a website called Flightradar 24, also available as a smartphone app, that allows you to track and identify flights, you might find this useful if you fancy checking out what we've said for yourself

wmd_2008

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 05:33 PM

link

Originally posted by SheopleNation

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Whats the problem don't want to get shown that you are wrong

You overestimate yourself. You don't dictate what I decide to post here.

You can't prove that chemtrails exist anymore than I can prove that they do. That is the reality of the situation.

Everything else is just you attempting to make this about me, instead of focusing on the topic of the thread. ~$heopleNation

edit on 9-3-2013 by SheopleNation because: TypO

Well you make a claim that YOU can't prove and when given the chance you avoid it everyone can see that and make their own conclusion about what you claim !

SheopleNation

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 09:51 PM

link

Aloysius the Gaul

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 10:33 PM

link

reply to post by neformore

The first one could even be 3 commercial airlienrs flying the same route seperated by 1000 or 2000 ft altitude depending on the rules they are flying under.

Edit to add screen shot from flightRadar24 from a few minutes ago - all the a/c this shot are over 30,000 feet and as you can see some of them are very close to each other, while others might appear close due to perspective from an angle even if they are 20-30 or more km apart

And here is how distance (in km) in the sky looks from the ground:

edit on 10-3-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

LLinx

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 01:36 AM

link

What about the second picture then. Its within the same minute, and the supposed 1000 to 2000 ft distances, suddenly mix together as they evaporate ? I'm not too sure thats 1000 ft, that sounds implausible, Look at the trails on picture 2, does it look like its blowing storm up there ?

edit on 11-3-2013 by LLinx because: Type-o's

wmd_2008

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 05:53 AM

link

Originally posted by SheopleNation

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Well you make a claim that YOU can't prove and when given the chance you avoid it everyone can see that and make their own conclusion about what you claim !

Seriously, Are you still trying to cause trouble in this thread wmd? Just let it go.

Listen, I am not here to answer your condescending questions, nor is anyone else here to serve you.

It's not about you. It's not about me. It's about the subject of chemtrails. So quit trying to act like anyone here gives a damn whatsoever about your personal vendetta against me, or anyone else here who disagree's with you.

Don't you understand the rules here at ATS? Stick to the subject of chemtrails. Did you listen to ATS Live last night? Of course you did not.

Get over your yes man self my friend, just let your ego go. ~$heopleNation

I am sticking to the subject and asking for proof of your claims.

Lets have a quick recap at some of your quotes and answers.

Originally posted by SheopleNation
The Deciders had their payed sheoplized agents spraying the hell out of us all day long here in Northern California. It happens for a few days every other week up here. One sprayed directly over our neighborhood even, not that our neighborhod was their target, I just found that amazing considering my thoughts and discussions here about chemtrails as of late.

If your theory was true( it isn't) how would you know what target

Originally posted by SheopleNation

How in the world have you managed to inspect every single Aircraft that has ascended from planet Earth?
You should well understand my friend that in order for you to validate your theory, You must provide some solid scientific evidence, yes?

Otherwise buddy, it's just blowing reckless assumptions out of your pie hole.

~$heopleNation

You say to Phage the above but YOU don't actually do it yourself

Originally posted by SheopleNation

Wrong. Being an expert on contrails is not needed when discussing chemtrails, I know enough, and I also know that I never get used to the smell of shillism.

Well since you seem to have all the answers, and desire to derail this thread by shifting the focus to me and what I know about contrails, then how about you enlighten us all?

Get over your condescending self, you're not impressing anyone other than your own ego. ~$heopleNation
edit on 6-3-2013 by SheopleNation because: TypO

You do know accusing members of being disinfo agents and shills is not ok!

Originally posted by SheopleNation

Originally posted by wmd_2008
You must have some proof of these large planes

First, Take a deep breath and calm down.

Ok, All the proof that I need is what I have seen with my own eyes. Convincing you or providing you with concrete proof is not my concern, nor is it my job.

It is in fact you that cannot see what is happening right above your head my friend. ~$heopleNation

Sorry but to prove something you really do need proof the contrail people on this thread proved links to pictures/video/data without a problem to back what there claiming that's the whole point of being on here.

If you REALLY need to have only people who believe you and give you a pat on the back and will never challenge any your claims there are other sites on the net run like that!!!

Have you not noticed the following on here DENY IGNORANCE.

wmd_2008

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 06:14 AM

link

Originally posted by LLinx
What about the second picture then. Its within the same minute, and the supposed 1000 to 2000 ft distances, suddenly mix together as they evaporate ? I'm not too sure thats 1000 ft, that sounds implausible, Look at the trails on picture 2, does it look like its blowing storm up there ?
edit on 11-3-2013 by LLinx because: Type-o's

Are the pictures taken in the same direction the Sun doesn't move that far in a minute the sun is in picture one not in picture two care to explain that.

Looked at the exif data pictures were taken with a Nokia N73 camera phone .

Now looking at the shadow in the second picture on the vent on the roof , the person took a picture of the planes at high altitude then turned to his left to picture the trails BEHIND the aircraft.

Also its obvious to anyone the plane you see is very low that's why you can see it the size it is on the picture at that altitude it's either just taken off or coming in to land.

edit on 11-3-2013 by wmd_2008 because: pic links added

defcon5

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 09:54 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by fireyaguns
Is it not up to you to protect you identity?

One way or the other, you would have to take my word that I am telling you the truth.
If I posted information that had my real name on it, you still don't know that is who I really am. If I posted photos, again, you have no idea what I look like. If you doubt me then contact another staff member.

Originally posted by fireyaguns
Can you not supply any documentation supporting the planes your worked on as in the name of the plane, plane registration or id codes, and dates your worked on them with the job sheet and or job description dated to help with matching up the plane and job x location + which hanger and your claim to have worked on any of them of course by protecting the I d's?

First off, I was a ramp supervisor, not a mechanic, so I ran terminal's not a hanger.

As to the paperwork, yes I could post assigned flight lines, fuel tickets, service tickets, certificates, training paperwork, etc... But again this stuff is now considered secure paperwork, so I will not be posting any of it. Even if I did, it would do little to prove my statements.

Additionally, as I post personal opinion on here (politics, religion, etc), I don't really want my former companies being able to discern who I am, or be put into a bind because I posted some opinion that they might find embarrassing.

Originally posted by fireyaguns
I am sure you could show many if not some payment slip or bank records without revealing your name and account numbers which would match up with the jobs and dates you claim you have done for evergreen?

My pay slips or bank statements would not show what airlines that I worked for anyway, so stop asking for them. Doing so is a major violation of the terms and conditions here.

Evergreen contracts their flights as they are a charter/freight company. They do not have a enough daily flights at most airports to justify hiring permanent personal, so they pay other airlines, or contract companies, to service their aircraft when they do fly in. At my airport, they used to fly in daily for freight, and once in a while as a passenger charter. They were serviced by people, such as myself, who were assigned to work on their aircraft as part of a contract with my company. That is why I have worked on so many different airlines and aircraft over the years.

Originally posted by fireyaguns
Is it not you posting false information? T&C violation

I believe that I covered this already.
I am NOT posting false information as that WOULD be a violation. I do not have to prove what I have done to you, or publicly. I have posted personal photos to the staff, and they can vet what I have done. However, go ahead and report me to the staff already so you can find out that I am who I say I am.

You know, I’m not claiming to be an alien, astronaut or something like that... Its not hard to find a lot of people out there who have worked in aviation, and as I have mentioned there are a number of us on this site...

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

network dude

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 02:12 PM

link

reply to post by fireyaguns

Since you seem to have a problem accepting anyone's information, how about you do what everyone else does and RESEARCH whatever it is you don't believe. A poster tells you something about their own personal experience and you want proof. Nothing wrong with that. Just quit being so damn lazy and FIND IT YOURSELF.

That might be the only way you will ever learn anything here as you sure won't believe any of the scientific explanations people keep spoon feeding you.

Or you can remain on the good ship paranoia and cruise to your heart's content.

Majic

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 02:49 PM

link

Friends, we need to dial back the snarkiness in this thread, and especially the ad hominem attacks.

It's normal for forums to go through ups and downs, and it seems courtesy both in this forum and in this thread is on a downward trend. Let's please turn that around, respect our rights as ATSers to express our opinions candidly on the topics, and keep our forums inviting and interesting for everyone.

IMPORTANT: Understanding The Geo-Engineering And Chemtrails Forum

Thanks to everyone who didn't need to be reminded, and to everyone willing to do better after being reminded. As always, if anyone has any questions or comments, please send me a private message, and keep posts in this thread confined to the topic itself.

Again, thanks.

tsurfer2000h

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 03:39 PM

link

reply to post by LLinx

These "contrails" were put up there by three planes flying close in formation . What planes fly this close to eachother? Within the same minute the trail is being dissolved, and there flies a normal plane across their path (lower altitude) , with zero trails.

Not as close as you might think....

fireyaguns

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 07:17 PM

link

The left trail crosses the right trails but as it aproches the crossing, the plane has lifted before crossing the trail. It didn't go through,but over.

Why did the pilot not stay on his path when heading of right if they are futher away than we may think, but raise the plane to not go through the trail?

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by LLinx

These "contrails" were put up there by three planes flying close in formation . What planes fly this close to eachother? Within the same minute the trail is being dissolved, and there flies a normal plane across their path (lower altitude) , with zero trails.

Not as close as you might think....

edit on 11-3-2013 by fireyaguns because: computer skills D

waynos

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 07:24 PM

link

Perhaps it was to avoid hitting the other plane, which appears to have travelled about the same distance past the crossing point

Aloysius the Gaul

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 07:25 PM

link

Originally posted by fireyaguns
Why did the pilot not stay on his path when heading of right if they are futher away than we may think, but raise the plane to not go through the trail?

Probably to avoid the wake turbulence - even at some distance the presence of a contrail can indicate turbulence, as per this video:

-the contrail is quite thin but you can still see the "bump" it gives the otehr a/c

Zaphod58

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 07:29 PM

link

reply to post by fireyaguns

Depending on the type of plane the wake turbulence can be deadly. A Boeing 757 has a greater in trail requirement than even a 747. A small plane flying within one and a half miles in trail of a 757 can be flipped over onto its back. Even a heavier plane can be tossed around some, putting crew and passengers at risk. He climbed slightly to get out of the wake turbulence, which tends to drop down slightly behind the aircraft creating it.

fireyaguns

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 09:33 PM

link

reply to post by waynos

Before they crossed they must have been almost side by side.

Do you think they really gad to avoid hitting?