The Kids understanding it. Why can't you?

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Basqiat
 


Who said we take it as a joke? Most skeptics simply want concrete proof that the plane overhead is responsible for the things claimed. Again, why is it that a plane 34000 feet overhead is responsible for so much, when there is so much more pollution created at ground level? Wouldn't that make more sense?




posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep

I think the issue is important, but I am by no means, frantic about it.


I can tell, because we are talking civilly about it


Is your idea about a controlled environment a vague notion or have you thought more into it?

I ask because I am interested as to how it would be done. Here is where I am at;

If a Chemtrail is released from a plane it must fall 7 miles to reach the earth. To do this it must pass through all the other pollution in the atmosphere below it, picking up stuff as it fell.

From 7 miles up, in air currents that circle the globe, where has it fallen? How would we know?

When you therefore test your box in the ground, and granting hat something has been found, how does one know where it came from?

However, 7 miles up, above all the clouds and ground sourced pollution, if you test the actual trail, you at least say with 100% certainty that what you found was contained within the trail.

What sort of controlled environment can replicate that certainty?



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


How much of an authority would do for you?
NASA?
They have websites dedicated to contrails, and freely passes out posters of different clouds.
Both have been mentioned here on ATS quite often. And both are routinely blasted as disinformation and propaganda.
The problem with what you are asking is that any expert produced by me or the other sciencephiles here on ATS are accused of being a part of the dread "them" out to get "us."
Belief in "chemtrails" seems to include the belief that those who do not are an automatic distrusted enemy. The reverse also seems true: If you believe in "chemtrails", you are "awake", "aware", and therefore trustworthy.
Case in point: On Mythbusters, they take the time to go to the experts, learn and share the science behind what they do, and present facts, measurements, failures, sources...they really go all out, looking for the truth behind the stories they present. On a lead-in to a "viewer's choice" episode, the comment was made that someone suggested the story about chemicals being put into the white lines behind aircraft, and it was rejected. They were blasted by believers.
At about the same time, the Artist former known as the Artist formerly known as Prince, mentioned in a talk show segment about "chemtrails." He was applauded by believers.
Now, I'm not really into celebrity endorsement or worship of any kind, but think that the people at "Mythbusters" would be a much better place to get some science knowledge than an odd musician.
But what do I know? I am routinely outed as DoD and CIA.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Basqiat
 


If you saw something sprayed in the air and it fell to earth in the same vicinity while you were still there, then it could not have been contrails.

Some Croatian Antonov An 2's were used as crop sprayers and were taken over by the Air Force in 1991. The An-2, is a large Russian biplane transport and may still have been used a decade later. This may be something more worthwhile to research into as it would be a genuine scandal. Low level spraying is not chemtrails, so it maybe best to trat your experience as something different unless and until some direct link can be found.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


I know I over simplified it, and at the time I thought of it, it was, and pretty much still is, just a notion. I'm not sure what each side would like ruled out. There would definitely need to be some sort of a case study to make it fair for both sides of the argument.

I would think it would need to be done in several locations to get a controlled sample, as well. Somewhere away from any plants/mills/etc that may send contaminating aerosols into the nearby vicinity. That is to say, nearby smoke stacks, and such, would need to be verified as not containing said contaminates. To be fully realized, it might take meteorological studies, as well as ecological studies(Epidemiology) to define the criteria of the tests.

Could be a study for some university student?

The problem I see with chasing planes around is that it's dangerous and could take thousands of flights to find just one plane dumping the stuff. If the geo engineering is true, and it is done on a massive scale, I suspect that they would dump non-pollutants as much, if not more, than actual aerosols, as to throw people off. Thus, the best course of action would be to just wait for weeks, with a beaker, and see what you find.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Basqiat
 


Who said we take it as a joke? Most skeptics simply want concrete proof that the plane overhead is responsible for the things claimed.


For starters I'd settle for credible evidence that anything "chemtrailish" is happening from aircraft at all - let alone that it is causing anything at ground level.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I'm only saying that 'something' is going on, not that its definetely chemtrails as the majority think of them, and what it all entails if it is so. I wouldn't have bothered with any serious thought on this experience if it wasn't for what happened to me, so to a degree, I understand the skepticism of those who haven't went through something similar, it would seem outrageous, and paranoid, etc.

Whoever does this probably hires a company temporarily, and uses only some of its planes, only on specific places, at specific times. This is why it would be easier to cover it up, if indeed an investigation is brought forward to get to the bottom of all of this.

Its important to be objective (this does not apply just to extreme skeptics on this topic, but those who are fanatical about it, thinking every plane out there does this, and the reasons behind it are the same etc.).
edit on 24-3-2013 by Basqiat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


A control could be to take a sample from 'clear' air beside the contrail as well as from the trail itself and see what is different. This would eliminate anything already in the air.

It would be essential to repeat the test many many times, even if something was found first time, because its the repeatability of the results that validates them, but the first time anything was found that wasn't supposed to be there BAM, you have peoples attention - as long as you can show you have done it properly.

There are already many such tests that have been carried out, but because they didn't find chemtrails certain members on this site think they were fiddled in some way.

You don't have to chase planes in a dangerous fashion either. It's a characteristic of the trails that are known as chem that they linger and spread all day. This should make the enterprise much easier. On persistent contrail days when the believers think they are being 'carpeted' you could fly from trail to trail sampling loads in one go.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Basqiat
I'm only saying that 'something' is going on, ......

Whoever does this .....


What is the "this" that you think is going on, and what is the evidence?



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by network dude
 


I ignored you because you were trying to draw me into a childish ad hominem argument. To get a test sample, we wouldn't need any "chemtrail fundraiser" lead by we coach coaches, we would just need a beaker in a controlled environment, and a honest and credible science lab to test the results.

Show respect and you might get some in return.


Yes, I offered a way for you to prove or disprove chemtrails and you see that as rude.
Perhaps instead of whine about how mean others are, you could actually LOOK INTO what it might take to do this task. I'll give you a hint, a search is all that is needed as Chadwickus has done all the leg work for you and F4guy even offered the plane.(for a fee)

I seriously don't know why the chemtrail crowd is so afraid of this particular test?



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Good move having the kids say the words but they seem more of a symbol of the issue rather than actual supporters of the movement. I would like to know who are the parents of these kids and how they got involved in the video. I bet the parent`s story is pretty interesting.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


This is similar to my view:

You have a house on a 1000 acre chicken farm. On the farm are thousands of baby chicks, and of those thousands of chicks, one of them is a female. The chicks are all moving around constantly, and they all look just about the same.

What your asking is to walk from your house picking up a couple of chicks that you pass by on your way from your house to some point, in the 1000 acre farm, and test if the ones you picked up were that 1 single female chick.

Now, I'm not saying you couldn't get lucky and find the female chick; I'm just saying the odds aren't in your favor.

The best thing, I think, would be to just place chicken feed near your house, and let them all come to you...

If they're spraying something in the air, it will eventually have to come down, because of its weight, or because it was trapped in rain. Why not catch it on it's way down?



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 




Why not catch it on it's way down?

You could. But how do you determine that what you catch isn't just dust?
There is a way but none of the "chemtrail" crowd seem to have bothered with it. A full spectrum analysis would show if there was an unusual preponderance of one element over the others. But all the "chemtrail" crowd does is test for the scary things like aluminum (7% of the Earth's crust) and barium. When they find them they say "aha! Chemtrails!"

On the other hand if they find along with that aluminum, things like silicon and magnesium and iron they'll have...dirt. Surprise. I wonder why they don't do those full spectrum tests.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Have you never worked with others to solve a problem? Essentially, what you're doing is telling the others in the group, "hey don't whine and complain (ask questions) - figure it out yourself".

Sir, you're the one who is whining and complaining.

We're just debating how to find unicorns.

If you want to actually converse with me, you're going to have to watch your manners.

If you want to be condescending, I think you should aim it at whomever raised you to have 0 etiquette.

Have a good day.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Hmm. Are you trying to say that you cannot test for an irregularly large amount of aluminum, or any other substance [that is very common in top level soil]? Shouldn't there be a maximum natural amount that the wind would cause to go air born, and based on that amount, you would be able to set a base line, and test for high amounts?

I'm not exactly sure where you're going with the full spectrum analyze mention. Do you think there might be "other" things in the air that is actually used, and because no one is testing for it, they're missing the true "chemtrail"?
edit on 3/25/2013 by Bleeeeep because: I added the part in the brackets to make my thoughts, more clear.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


I guess it's easy to just take the zero. When I see a white line behind a plane, I am pretty sure it's a contrail. I am not concerned with "them" spraying me. If all the paranoid folks want to think someone is out the get them, that's fine. I get involved when they start trying to teach children all about their own personal boogyman, as kids need to learn facts and when they get older, they can decide for themselves if they believe all those facts or not. As kids, they don't yet have the life experience that is required to make an informed decision. As far as taking a sample of a chemtrail, you are right that nobody will be able to agree on what constitutes a chemtrail.

The vast majority claims that any trail lasting longer than "X" amount of minutes is for sure a chemtrail. Those people can be fixed rather quickly with the experiment I suggested. Sample any trail that lasts longer than the prescribed time, and poof, you have your answer.

The problem is, the chemtrail crowd is batspit crazy. They don't think the same and they move the goal posts anytime you get close to an answer.

What bothers me most of all, it how all of them will post all about how terrible they are, they will whine and complain about how evil they are, but nobody DOES anything. hell, look at you, all kinds of reasons why nothing we suggest will work, but no real ideas on how to "FIX" anything.

Grab a tissue and type some more empty words.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


What you're saying is that the irrational people should let their kids learn "facts" from the people they perceive to be an enemy. That's illogical. If they do not trust said party, they definitely will not trust their "facts".

I think your idea, or rather the idea you are just repeating, is ineffective. Thus I have offered my own idea. If you think my idea isn't a "real" idea, well, that's fine. What isn't fine, however, is the condescending remarks. Granted, your rude behavior may get people to stop posting about this topic, but it doesn't solve the real issue. I think it just get people more upset, and if you truly wanted to solve the issue, you wouldn't use such tactics.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Basqiat
I'm only saying that 'something' is going on, ......

Whoever does this .....


What is the "this" that you think is going on, and what is the evidence?


I don't know what it is, that's why I'm here, trying to see if there is anything to this topic, prompted by a terrible personal experience that may or may not have been part of this "conspiracy".

As for evidence, I have none.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Basqiat
 


Testimony is evidence in a court of law. If backed by the test results, your doctor must have kept on record when you went to see him that day/night, then you should have pretty good evidence.

Just my opinion.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


Are you trying to say that you cannot test for an irregularly large amount of aluminum, or any other substance [that is very common in top level soil]?
No. I am saying that you can. But the only way you can determine if it is an unusually high amount of aluminum is by testing for other elements and determining the relative amounts. If, for example, you find in your sample that aluminum is present at levels greater than silicon, that would be unusual. If you find that there is no iron or calcium in your sample, that would be unusual. Just finding aluminum tells you nothing.



Shouldn't there be a maximum natural amount that the wind would cause to go air born, and based on that amount, you would be able to set a base line, and test for high amounts?
Yes, you can test for "high amounts" of dust. For example, during dry, windy weather you will probably find more dust than you will during damp, calm weather. But if you only test for aluminum in that dust, aluminum is all you will find and it will not tell you anything.



I'm not exactly sure where you're going with the full spectrum analyze mention.
It seems that you don't. You cannot tell if there are unusual levels of aluminum unless you compare the amount of aluminum to other elements in the sample.


Do you think there might be "other" things in the air
Yes. "Other things" like wind blown dust.
edit on 3/25/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum