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.

 

Radar Bursts, Chemtrails and Other Anomalies

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMagus
 


Scott Stevens in NOT a meteorologist. He didn't finish even the first 4 years of study and to claim that title you need about 4 years post-grad.

He is a TV weatherman. Or at least he was until he resigned after the station he worked for discovered he had padded his credentials...a lot.

"...Stevens Lied on His Resume"




posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Erich94
 



So many people have just been saying that "Chemtrails don't exist" and then that's the end of it. Obviously they do, because there has been things put in motion that are being used for weather modification.

Chemtrails do not exist and that is the end of it. The ideas, concepts, and practice, of weather modification is nearly as old as humanity. Ever hear of the Norse god Thor? People use to pray to Thor to stop the lightning and thunder. Since then, there have been more tangible efforts, such as the introduction of silver iodide into the atmosphere.

I just don't understand how people can blindly follow what they are told, even if it doesn't make any sense what so ever. They just assume that since some authority figure told them, that it's true.

Two questions for you in response. Who are you blindly following? What authority figure has told you chemtrails are real?

One thing that I have to mention, is that a heavy spray day looks something like this. 2.bp.blogspot.com... or this thegreaterpicture.com... Here is a comparison of contrails and chemtrails, 1.bp.blogspot.com...

Every single picture you have posted is a picture of contrails. Lots of them.

Obviously there is a difference, I don't know how many of you actually watch the skies when you go outside, if anyone even goes outside anymore but if you do, you'll notice somedays the skies are completely clear, and then others the skies are full of white puffy chemtrails, and then right next to it will be a jet leaving a regular contrail that dissipates as it flies. What differentiates the two trails, one lingers in the sky and spreads out for hours, while the other fades away.

So, according to you, and according to John B. Wells (C2C AM), when he was interviewing William Thomas and Michael Murphy about a month ago, the DIFFERENCE between a contrail and a chemtrail is the chemtrail will linger and the contrail will dissipate. Well, I did not have the opportunity to call in to ask JB Wells the question, nor Michael Murphy/William Thomas (No calls were being accepted on the topic...I wonder why?)...so I will ask you, as one other Hoosier has already done... WHY CAN A CLOUD PERSIST AND A CONTRAIL CANNOT PERSIST? ANSWER THE QUESTION PLEASE!!!

Altitude difference has nothing to do with it, because you can see it occurring at any point in the atmosphere.

Horse hockey...

Weather modification is real, Weather Modification Bill

While weather modification is certainly real, the bill you gave in support is certainly not...it died...

S. 517 (109th): Weather Modification Research and Development Policy Authorization Act of 2005 Introduced: Mar 03, 2005 (109th Congress, 2005–2006) Sponsor: Sen. Kay Hutchison [R-TX] Status: Died (Reported by Committee)


As for HAARP, If I believe correctly, even nations in Europe are getting uneasy at the fact we are using this technology. They are afraid of the effects it could have on our planet. If there was nothing to worry about, no one would be worried, but that's not the case.

As someone else here already pointed out, HAARP is not even the most powerful device of its type in the world. Please read this and learn. Thank you.

Interest in the ionosphere is not limited to the US: a five-country consortium operates the European Incoherent Scatter Radar site (EISCAT), a premier ionosphere research facility located in northern Norway near Tromso. Facilities also are located at Jicamarca, Peru; near Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod ("SURA") and Apatity, Russia; near Kharkov, Ukraine and in Dushanbe, Tadzhikistan. All of these installations have as their primary purpose the study of the ionosphere, and most employ the capability of stimulating to a varying degree small, localized regions of the ionosphere in order to study methodically, and in a detailed manner what nature produces randomly and regularly on a much larger scale. HAARP is unique to most existing facilities due to the combination of a research tool which provides electronic beam steering, wide frequency coverage and high effective radiated power collocated with a diverse suite of scientific observational instruments.


Looks like countries across the world are taking the Alfred E. Neumann approach...




posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
What evidence do you have that proves they do not exist. You are so certain that they do not, yet millions of people believe that they do. There has been studies and all sorts of investigation into it by private parties that suggests that there is in fact chemtrails. You are just saying you know because you know, how does that make any sense?



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Erich94
 


Because there hasn't been one shred of proof that they do. Even if "millions of people believe" that doesn't make something true. If people are so convinced they're real, why hasn't one single person ever leased a sampling plane, and taken samples to prove they're real? The contrail scientists have done it, and proven contrails are real, the chemtrail hoaxers had enough money to spend thousands on a movie or three, why couldn't they take it and lease a plane that costs about $5,000 an hour or less to take some samples and have them analyzed?



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Erich94
 


It is quite simple. I know they do not exist because what has been presented as evidence for chemtrails is in fact actual evidence of contrails.

Put it this way. What if I stated I saw an honest to goodness alien from another planet? The only thing is this. This alien happens to look exactly like a human being. What would you expect for evidence? A picture of my child? Or would more evidence be required in order to substantiate my claim? Something such as chemical makeup of the alien or DNA? Showing a distinct difference between the alien and humanity?

In this case, you post pictures of what you call chemtrails, stating that you call them chemtrails, simply on the basis of persistence (i.e., they last longer than contrails). Other than that, you post nothing else in support. When asked the following question..."Why can clouds persist, but contrails cannot persist?", you fail to provide any response at all...

So, if you can answer that question, then also provide the substantive difference in chemical composition between what you call a contrail and what you call a chemtrail, then I, along with every other single poster here, will be among the very first people to applaud you and join the fight.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by TheMagus
 


Scott Stevens in NOT a meteorologist. He didn't finish even the first 4 years of study and to claim that title you need about 4 years post-grad.

He is a TV weatherman. Or at least he was until he resigned after the station he worked for discovered he had padded his credentials...a lot.

"...Stevens Lied on His Resume"

ROFL

spin much?
the irony is that you're misrepresenting an article that i postedhere:www.abovetopsecret.com...
while leaving out this

alb.merlinone.net...

In a statement read during Tuesday's 6 p.m. broadcast, David Lynch, vice president and general manager, said WRGB ``hired Scott Stevens to be chief meteor-ologist based on faulty information provided by Scott'' and his agency. WRGB subsequently learned that ``Scott has never completed the necessary academic course of studies that would lead him to the official title of meteorologist,'' according to the statement read by anchorwoman JoAnne Purtan. Lynch's statement emphasized that Stevens' allegedly false presentation of his credentials and the station's concern for its integrity was the issue, not Stevens' performance. ``During his time at WRGB, Scott Stevens has done a superb job of forecasting the weather. His knowledge of meteorology and his broadcasting experience have provided him with the background to serve you well,'' the statement said. Meteorologist Steve LaPointe will replace Stevens on the 5, 6, 6:30 and 11 p.m. broadcasts, the station announced. When contacted Tuesday night, Stevens, 28, an Idaho native, said he never lied about not completing his bachelor's degree at the University of Kansas. He said he plans to finish his degree, which he originally put on the back burner in favor of a television job. ``As a 22-year-old, when you get a good job offer, that's what talks. My priorities weren't right,'' he said. He contends that his resignation was forced by a technicality; namely, the credentials required to be a meteorologist. ``Meteorologist is a very vague term . . . and then when you get into television on top of that, it adds another whole mix into it,'' he said. ``It's television. It's different than academia. They're buying a personality. They're buying talent. That's what the TV game is about. It's about people,'' Stevens continued. He said he has no immediate plans. ``I wasn't thinking about looking for work, to be honest with you. It's time to gather the thoughts, and goals and mind, and go on.''


a thread you were on, but here you are again, slinging the same slanderous one-sided BS.

i'll bet you'"re still monitor**COUGH COUGH** STILL have that thread open on another tab

of course, the "sane" will do anything, even kill, to preserve their core-beliefs
even vandalize somebodies wiki page because:

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

08:42, 9 November 2012 Sandstein (talk | contribs) deleted page Scott Stevens (weatherman) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Stevens (weatherman))
02:39, 24 September 2005 Moriori (talk | contribs) deleted page Scott Stevens (weatherman) (content was: 'Crackpot' (and the only contributor was '67.80.139.189'))
17:50, 23 September 2005 Academic Challenger (talk | contribs) deleted page Scott Stevens (weatherman) (content was: '[[empty]]See Kooks')

en.wikipedia.org...
you wouldn't know anything about, that would you?

sounds just like some resident ATS-Trollolos i know...




i'm a college dropout myself, doesn't mean i can't solve a differential equation, solve a linear algebra problem or a chemical equation.

OR THINK FOR MYSELF.
[or think "Irrationally" and use "Illogic"]

meanwhile there is a surfeit of people with degree's and letters behind their names that owe what success they may have more to their connections than any ability/knowledge they may have

so all you've "proven" with the above post is your slavish worship of a piece of paper that only shows that the bearer has been "certified" by the system as a properly trained monkey and as having jumped through all the right hoops.

and your willingness to defame and persecute any and all who don't "get with the propaga*COUGH* program".

ROFL! i'd say mr. stevens has WAY more credibility than someone you and i both know...







and i don't mean myself



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I don't really want to get into another protracted chemtrail debate tonight, but I do want to show you something about what you are seeing with the radar systems:

See where it says Md=cl
That means... Mode = Clear Air
Clear Air mode is what is producing your “circles” not HAARP.


Clear Air Mode:

When there’s no precipitation in the area, it’s common for the radar to be operating in what is called “clear air mode.” In this mode, the radar is scanning more slowly so that it can be more sensitive and pick up much weaker returns. This allows it to see more details and detect finer particles in the atmosphere, including things like dust and insects.

Follow the link to see example pictures that look just like what you are posting.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by TheMagus
 





a thread you were on, but here you are again, slinging the same slanderous one-sided BS.


What is one sided here?

Fact:

Scott Stevens lied about his credentials.

Fact:

He was caught and asked about it

Fact:

He got caught and resigned

Fact:

He lied

Pretty cut and dry there, as no one is slinging BS except you and Scott Stevens about his credentials.

BTW he was a TV weatherman and not a meteorologists...big difference there.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by whatnext21
 





What the...


It's called weather it happens everyday.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMagus
i'm a college dropout myself, doesn't mean i can't solve a differential equation, solve a linear algebra problem or a chemical equation.

Sure there are smart folks out there with no college, but without the appropriate alphabet behind their names their word is taken as meaningless by any serious researcher.

Now if the guy doesn't have the professional credentials, and he's supporting chemtrials which no other professional in aviation or meteorology will, then what does that honestly say about him, eh?
...Right, he's full of it, and has all the credibility of a layman with an opinion...



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


indianinthemachine.files.wordpress.com...

You can see the obvious altitude difference in this picture. If I believe correctly, jet contrails form above 33,000 feet when the hot engine exhaust condenses ice into vapor trails. If the reason that contrails persist in the sky for longer periods of time at different altitudes has to do with the fact that the temperature varies greatly in different areas in the atmosphere, how would it make sense that this water vapor would freeze at a lower altitude and not freeze at a higher altitude as i'm fairly certain it gets extremely cold the higher up you get into the air.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Erich94
 


That could be simply the difference between a 747 and a CRJ, with 1,000 feet of difference between them. Obviously the 747 is going to leave a much bigger contrail than a small regional jet will, but both will leave contrails.

Persistent contrails aren't ONLY the temperature. They also require other conditions, which change radically within a few hundred feet. If there isn't enough humidity, or enough moisture, you don't get a persistent contrail. You may get one at 34,000 feet, but at 34,500 feet you don't, because conditions have changed that much.
edit on 6/7/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
So the condition could change so rapidly that this would happen? 1.bp.blogspot.com...

I don't see that to be very likely.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Erich94
 


The atmosphere changes radically constantly. Sometimes you get areas where the conditions aren't right for a persistent trail, right in the middle like that. I see it all the time. If we had a nice uniform atmosphere, you would be right, but we don't.

It has nothing to do with changing, as it may not have been right for them to persist in the first place.
edit on 6/7/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erich94
You can see the obvious altitude difference in this picture. If I believe correctly, jet contrails form above 33,000 feet when the hot engine exhaust condenses ice into vapor trails.

There is no set altitude at which contrails form, it is a factor of three things:
1)Temperature.
2)Humidity.
3)Engine bypass ratio.

An engine with a higher bypass ratio flying through the same patch of air as one with a lower bypass ratio will form a contrail while the later will not.
en.wikipedia.org...

In a nutshell, older engines are less prone to make contrails then the newer engines are.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I see, but what other conditions aside from humidity have an effect on the persisting of contrails? I don't really understand what would allow them to linger for hours in the air?

I didn't see your post until I just posted mine.
edit on 7-6-2013 by Erich94 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Erich94
 

That is a thermal, and yes it changes the temperature in that area of sky very radically. As a matter of fact these are what gliders use to gain altitude, and when you see birds gliding in a circle over are area its often in a thermal.

Thermal



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Erich94
 


Persistent contrails require very moist, cold air. Obviously the air at altitude is already very cold, but when it's close to the supersaturation point, and a jet engine goes through it, then you will get a persistent contrail.

Regular contrails are when the air just moist, but not moist enough to allow the contrail to stay formed for long periods of time.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Erich94
 
Again, in a nutshell, here is the answer to the entire “chemtrail” vs “contrail” debate:

Look at what happened to the bypass ratios as engine technology improved and older aircraft, especially the 727, were retired. You really don't need to look any further for “what has changed that is causing these constant contrails”, than this chart right here.

Its nothing being "sprayed", its nothing "in the gas", its not about "changing the climate"...



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Erich94
 





So the condition could change so rapidly that this would happen? 1.bp.blogspot.com... I don't see that to be very likely.


Tell you what, here is a good place to get your answers to your questions...

contrailscience.com...



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join