I want to be a CHEMTRAIL DEBUNKER

page: 35
25
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by AndyMayhew
 


I'd be impressed if they did. I've worked on them and there isn't room for ANYTHING extra that's not mission related. You talked about some cramped spaces, the only thing worse is the F-16.




posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by fireyaguns
 





I will ask you because you seem to know more than the Gual. waynos, phage and tsufer2000


And your welcome for the pic...

Btw did you learn anything from that pic?

Funny, and you know that how?



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by fireyaguns
 


I don't know, I am just trying to interpret the image in response to your question. It depends why one of them turned and the other did not I suppose.

Edit; replied before reading the subsequent posts to the one I was replying to.

Cheers for the clarification guys
edit on 12-3-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by fireyaguns
 


They were side by side because they were flight lead and wingman. Turns out they were supposed to be, and in absolutely no danger of hitting each other. Normal formation for that is one slightly behind the other, and to either the right or left, depending on where the lead wants him.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Picture 1 & 2 taken from here:
59°17'29.43"N , 5°17'25.53"E
-direction : Directly east

The picture shot before picture 1 and 2 ;
Picture 0

If you look at the my picture 2, at the shadows, you see the sun must be to the right.

Also, is this plane a normal plane ? It looks like theres other things than engines on its wings.
Video 1

This plane comes in for landing, WAY to low. Couple hundred meters over a residential area. Emergency landing, or deliberate poisoning of population ... you tell me, I've only seen planes come that low, probably twice in my life. Anyone care to take a guess on its height ?
Video 2

Then theres this; A very long contrail, directly under the sun, not dissipating in the same time frame or altitude (according to replies) as the triple contrail, i posted. Does not look to me to be too far up there. OfCOURSE its always imPOSSIBLE to tell, right, but gimme some feedback thats not ignorant please. Video 3



In fact, i would assume the trail in Vid3 is about the same altitude as this one
But this plane's trails seems to dissipate very quickly, care to explain that ?
Video 4

This plane seems to have the trail-traits of a " chemical " nature (using the word in a laboratory way, since people in here wants to put everything under the chemical-definition) Parts of the trail just dont dissipate like vapour should . Care to explain ?
Picture 5


This is the same trail three minutes later. Is this contradictory to the trails that evaporate after 1-2 minutes???
Picture 6

Still questioning my liability ? not enough EXIFs ? tsk tsk


edit on 13-3-2013 by LLinx because: Some typo's
edit on 13-3-2013 by LLinx because: Non-working link



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by LLinx
 


Video 1 is a Q400 it looks like, perfectly normal.



Video 2 not leaving a trail of any kind, coming in to land somewhere nearby, looks like a 737 of some kind (later model probably a 700 or 800). Just because a plane is flying overhead doesn't mean they're poisoning you. Winds shift and they land in odd directions some times that you aren't used to seeing. Here in the US as long as they stay 500 feet above the tallest building in that particular city, they are perfectly legal. I don't see anything wrong with it.

Video 3 normal contrail. How is it ignorant to say that you can't tell the altitude from the ground when you can't?

Video 4 normal contrail. Again normal contrail, can't tell the altitude. It dissipates quickly as opposed to the other one because the atmospheric conditions are different. Less humidity, or older engines, contrail dissipates quickly as opposed to being persistent.

Picture 5 looks perfectly normal to me. I've been out on the road since July, and have seen some that quickly dissipate, some that don't, and some that start and stop. All perfectly normal trails, as the atmosphere is extremely dynamic and can change drastically in a very short distance.

Picture 6 looks like you have windshear or some kind of front moving through.
edit on 3/13/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by LLinx
 


Cant see pic 0 why dont you just upload to ATS.

I didn't say the sun wasn't to the right I said that after you took the picture of the jets high up you must have turned to your LEFT to take the other picture owning to the SIMPLE fact the vent on the roof has its shadow on the left!!! and the trails in that picture are behind the jets.

There may have only been a minute between picture one and two BUT there was many miles and mins between the jets and the trails in picture 2.





Also using the location given there seems to be an airport only 9-10 miles away.
As I said in picture 2 that jet had just taken of or was about to land.

As for your video 1 look at this picture.



Oh look something on the wings watch out it's going to spray :0

Video 2 where was it shot what type of camera was zoom used ie look at the braches etc.

Video 3 YOU have no information to work with altitude temperature or humidity at that level!
Video 4 see above

Is it the small plane in the picture ?

Picture 6 again we have no info!



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by LLinx
 


Hi, I'm afraid I dont see your photo, I just get a sign in page when I click the Link.

The plane in your first video is perfectly normal. It is a De Havilland Dash 8-400. A regional airliner that seats around 70 passengers. Those extra items on the wings are streamlined flap fairings and here is an image that shows them in action on the same model of plane.



The second video shows nothing unusual, I don't know why you would think a landing approach might be too low and the video offers no clue other than you saw a plane, Planes landing kind of have to get close to the ground, finishing up on it. Whether its a residential area or not has no bearing, the plane has to take the correct landing path.

In this case your image shows a Boeing 737-700, here is a low res version of a photo I took myself of a 737-800 (longer model with more seats) at my local airport last year




Your third video is a good example of a persistant contrail, these are the ones where the air is already so saturated that the moisture in the trail cannot sublimate as there is nowhere for it to go so the trail just sits there until that condition is changed. These are the ones that some people seem to have a hard time understanding, I photographed quite a lot of those in my own studies, and the planes that left them, and each and every one was an airliner on a passenger flight at about 30,000 - 35,000ft. Its a reasonable guess therefore that your video here shows the same thing.

Video 4; Yes, they look to be about the same hieght in comparison with my own studies. The only difference here would be that the relative humidty of the air the plane is passing through is lower than the previous one to a degree that allows the moisture to sublimate and so the trail vanishes. I'm afraid here the image of the plane itself is unavoidably a little blurry but the wing characteristic is suggestive of the Airbus A330 to me.

The last two pictures also show contrails that are persisting, but only for a few minutes, the effect you see in the last one is caused by the wake turbulence of the airliner that left it. I have also tracked and identified aircraft causing similar effects (and some others that you haven't posted here but may have seen). I have posted these before on ATS but can re-post them here if you would like to see them along with the aircraft data I collected at the same time.

Unfortunately photo's alone dont give enough info, but if you used flightradar 24 on the planes you were watching you would see exactly what was causing it. Here is an example




posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Thank you for taking time to debunk
I'm not saying you are ignorant, but one often get ignorant answers here on ATS, thats why i wrote that, not to call you ignorant. I must say I'm still confused as to what people call chemtrails, so far the explainations as I've understood has been;

Over 10k feet > contrails, PERIOD
30k feet, > persistant contrails, slow dissipation
Under 10k feet > possibility of contrails, quick dissipation
Under 3k to 1k feet > very low chance of contrails
Persistancy; atmospheric conditions
Consistancy; age of engines, atmospheric conditions, humidity, wind
-Please correct me if I've gotten this wrong.

So I guess we'll never get the straight answer if we ask flight specialists, as they can always just refer to the explanation above. I have though read that some people have actually gone out where they've spotted, calculated the chemtrails to fall down to, and gotten strange results on heavy metals, and non-natural levels of toxins. I will try to find that read later today. It was linked to planes carrying out the dumping of the waste from industry, since they have to pay a huge amount to get rid of it legally.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by LLinx
 


They claim things like high levels of aluminium in soil but !


Aluminium is the third most abundant element (after oxygen and silicon), and the most abundant metal, in the Earth's crust



It makes up about 8% by weight of the Earth's solid surface


Yet the still wonder why


Was i right about how you took the pictures?



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by LLinx
Thank you for taking time to debunk
I'm not saying you are ignorant, but one often get ignorant answers here on ATS, thats why i wrote that, not to call you ignorant. I must say I'm still confused as to what people call chemtrails, so far the explainations as I've understood has been;

Over 10k feet > contrails, PERIOD
30k feet, > persistant contrails, slow dissipation
Under 10k feet > possibility of contrails, quick dissipation
Under 3k to 1k feet > very low chance of contrails
Persistancy; atmospheric conditions
Consistancy; age of engines, atmospheric conditions, humidity, wind
-Please correct me if I've gotten this wrong.

So I guess we'll never get the straight answer if we ask flight specialists, as they can always just refer to the explanation above. I have though read that some people have actually gone out where they've spotted, calculated the chemtrails to fall down to, and gotten strange results on heavy metals, and non-natural levels of toxins. I will try to find that read later today. It was linked to planes carrying out the dumping of the waste from industry, since they have to pay a huge amount to get rid of it legally.


The way you are understanding contrails places too much emphasis on altitude. The conditions that lead to contrail formation are sub zero temperatures, combining this with relative humidity levels determines whether they persist or not and for how long. In some places, such as Greenland for example, this can happen at ground level. In Nevada, above the burning desert, it could be 30,000ft before the temperature is low enough. On my own photos I shot an Airbus Beluga at 14k leaving no trail, but nothing I saw over 30k failed to leave some sort of trail.

Temperature and humidity also vary so a trail might be left one day that vanishes immediately and the following day the same flight by the same plane at the same altitude will leave a contrail that lasts all day and spreads out. Chemtrailers tend to see this as a contradiction rather than just weather. Likewise the fact that the air is not uniform, it has eddys and currents like water does, it can be cold and warm, high and low RH within quite short distances, this plus planes flying at different heights also leads to sightings of long and short trails at the same time.

The trouble with taking samples from or near the ground is that you cannot say where anything you find came from. There are winds, factory chimneys, car exhausts and a myriad of other sources. Sand from the Sahara has been carried on the wind to fall on where I live in Yorkshire. So saying such and such came from a contrail can only be speculation., those who sell videos claiming such things with certainty are the most suspicious aspect of Chemtrail theory IMO.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


There, Picture 0 is working.

I took those pictures long ago, I cant remember how i was turning, but I dont think its possible to manipulate the angle , by moving, etc, within one minute, I am 100% sure I took the pictures from the same spot.

Picture 6 has the following info: Its the same planes trail as in picture 5, 3 minutes later.
I have read/seen how people call it a chemtrail, if its got chopped up in a short time. Its strange to me that one of the trails is not cut up, since they would be like a wing-distance between them.

-Got to go, will post later on the other replies, although I'm not claiming them to be chemtrails, I just want an explanation, as there is so much conflicting info on chem/contrails.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by LLinx
 


Picture 0 was the first picture on the post I replied first to, you said you were facing east it was taken in the morning we see the Sun so ok , the second picture was the building with the vent on the roof if you didn't move you would have turned to your left to take that picture due to the Sun's position and the shadow on the vent so the contrails you see in that picture if from the jets in the first picture are miles back and left when the jets where at that position.

If those contrails are not from the jets in the first picture we don't know when then were left.

Regarding the second picture you commented on the jet we can see , and using the location you gave there is an airport only 9-10 miles away that's why the jet is low.

You made a guess at the height of the contrails now since you cant even see the jets in the first pic because they are so high what would make you think the contrails are only a few hundred mtrs up.


Originally posted 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. 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 ?



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 03:18 AM
link   
35 pages of pure joy!!

My favourite sport is boxing. My favourite food is a good fish super. My favourite threads now are 'chemtrail' threads, and the bizarre link to boxing and fish supers? A good battering. Watching so called truthers battered with logic and intelligence, its a wonderful sight.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by OnionHead
 





Watching so called truthers battered with logic and intelligence, its a wonderful sight.


Your sense of logic appears to be accepting what you're told.

Watching the anti-truthers reminds me of the people who were convinced the world was flat.

You do know the world is round right?



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 


Your reply reminds me of a thread I did over 2 years ago...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Is it no wonder so many chemtrail believers would also be fooled by the flat earth myth?

Deny ignorance


edit on 16/3/13 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by OnionHead
 





Watching so called truthers battered with logic and intelligence, its a wonderful sight.


Your sense of logic appears to be accepting what you're told.

Watching the anti-truthers reminds me of the people who were convinced the world was flat.

You do know the world is round right?


You got that from my post? Well done.... Its common sense, just look at the facts (And lack of them) presented in this thread. Let me guess, you lap up every conspiracy going? As for this one, it took a severe battering through 35 pages.

Wonder will they 'chemtrail' Ireland with a nice green smoke for St Paddy's? Who cares, I will be terribly terribly drunk anyway.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 





Your sense of logic appears to be accepting what you're told.


And how is yours any different?



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 


Not, "told".
Witnessed, observed, studied, experienced, and proven factually through decades of research.

The "chemtrail" side:
Anecdotal stories, mistaken clouds, unfamiliarity with flight navigation/flight paths, mistaken about physics, mistaken about chemistry, mistaken about mineralogy, mistaken about altitude, unfamiliarity with atmospheric science, suspicion, supposition, and paranoia.
Oh, and believing what they are told when it follows their theory about "chemtrails" infinitum, including videos, stories, and pictures proven to be hoaxed or just wrong long ago.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 07:07 AM
link   
This would be the aerial geo engineering deniers, this video will show a couple of minutes of aerial geo engineering.


m.youtube.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Link





new topics
top topics
 
25
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join