Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

But, contrails didn't look like that when I was a kid.......

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by abe froman
 


And those particles in the soil can ONLY come from that plane flying overhead, right? There are no naturally occurring ground sources, or plants on the ground that could cause that, right?




posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
The OP's premise is that, based on the evidence of a peer reviewed scientific paper published in 1970 - long before the blogosphere came into existence, or, indeed, the rise of the interent generated the chemtrail meme hoax - aircraft contrails persisted and spread across the sky. Exactly as chemtrails are said to do today.

So:

In what why do chemtrails differ from those contrails studied in 1970?



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by abe froman
 


But geo engineering is not chemtrails. We know GE is real, it's chemtrails that are made up nonsense.

Do you know the difference or have the chemmies managed to brainwash you that they are the same?



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by abe froman
 


And those particles in the soil can ONLY come from that plane flying overhead, right? There are no naturally occurring ground sources, or plants on the ground that could cause that, right?


Actually, the question is how is it physically possible for them to come from a plane flying overhead?

Now, if it was claimed that they came from a plane flying 5000 miles upwind 8 days ago, fair enough ..... Otherwise, we're looking at a substance that defines all the known laws of physics!!!!!

Edit: experiment: stand on top of a tall building and sprinkle talcum powder on the ground. Note whether it lands directly below you. Now imagine doing the same from 6 miles above the ground. On a very windy day .....

edit on 10-10-2013 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   

sayzaar
You've got to laugh. The OP reads ONE paper and that's it, no chemtrails.


well it outnumbers the number of papers saying that chemtrails do exist by 1.

And it is actually only debunking 1 particular piece of "evidence" of the chemtrail hoax - that there is supposedly something different about "chemtrails" now that was not present in the past.

and here's some more of that:


The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitude trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallizes the watery vapor in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favorable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside.

- Antoine de Saint Exuperry, "Flight to Arras", 1942, still available on Amazon.

He was writing about his experience flying recce missions over the front line in 1940.

By all means identify other evidence if you like - so far I haven't seen any such evidence that isn't bunk - perhaps you will be the first to provide some??



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


So the military complex spends years and millions on pipe dreams?

How does a thinly veiled disclaimer nugate what millions if not billions of people see?

You guys are funny.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


Have you SEEN some of what the military has tried to develop over the years? And spent billions on?

As for this, it was a War College paper written by the students there. It was never meant to be used as doctrine, it was an assignment that they had to write.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 





And let's not forget the Air Force owning the weather by 2025.


How did you miss this?


2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air
Force to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will
require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future. Presented on 17 June
1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school environment of
academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense.
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official
policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United
States government.
This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any
similarities to real people or events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional
and are for purposes of illustration only.
This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities, is
unclassified, and is cleared for public release.


csat.au.af.mil...



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


You boys may want to take a peek at the bibliography of that student research paper.

Getting funnier.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


The idea was to write a paper that showed what the Air Force would have to do if it wanted to remain in power as the premier air force in the world. Which means using real world sources, but not necessarily real scenarios.

If you bother to look into some of the systems they talk about, you'll realize just how far out there this is. We can barely achieve hypersonic flight one time out of 12 right now, but in just over 10 years we're going to be able to launch "swarms of hypersonic missiles"?

They couldn't even make the YAL-1A work on a fairly short range level, but in just over 10 years they're going to have a laser that can fire from the US, completely conquer atmospheric issues (while not hitting anything flying overhead), hit a reflector, bounce off other reflectors, and hit targets in other countries, with enough power to destroy them? Seriously?

They are going to have UAVs that can fight air to air, space based weapons platforms, and more in ten years or so? But they can't develop a simple manned fighter in less than 20? Really?

That's amazing.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


So the disclaimer is false, but the proposal is official doctrine? How did you determine which bits of a single document are credible and which are not?



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


Simple actually. Take one Edward Teller, an Air Force Student Paper (still chuckling), numerous patents, the knowledge that the military complex overlords are maniacal narcissists, and a bunch of shills in every forum I participate in slathering the same propagandized insults at members that are brave enough to believe their own eyes, Oh....and my own eyes. Chemtrails.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


So, you have eyes that can tell you what a chemtrail is? Where do you get a set of those, I'm still looking for them.

So basically it comes down to "I don't trust the government, and they can do anything, so it's true." Evidence? Pfft, who needs evidence.
edit on 10/10/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


It's not just the eyes, it's the open and astute mind behind them.

Is it your mission here at ATS to take care of what you believe to be the more delusional members?



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


I have a lot more knowledge about aviation than most people do, and more experience with it than a hell of a lot of people. That means that it takes a lot more than "I can see the difference, and have an open mind" to convince me, because unlike most, I actually know what I'm looking at.

Yes, I get paid a bonus for every delusional member I "take care of" on ATS.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   
The whole Chemtrails thing is one of those conspiracies I think is just stupid,

its like saying AIDS was made in a lab or KFC makes black dudes impotent or Elvis is alive and all those kind of wacky conspiracies. So i just dont really bother very much with it, I find it very hard to take a member seriously who thinks that those clouds made by planes are something more than a byproduct of jet engine exhausts

A who lota people on ATS need to take some time getting in touch with reality.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


But if the disclaimer is not real, then it must be a lie. If the disclaimer is a lie then the rest of the same document must be a lie too as it is linked to the government and written by the same people that did the disclaimer.

Phew, what a relief. thanks for clearing that up.

Yeah, it's disgusting that believers get insulted isn't it. It's not like you go around calling sceptics "shills" or anything hypocritical like that..........oh wait.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Zaphod58

Then why did someone in 1915 report seeing a contrail that spread out to become cloud cover? Were they already spraying us back then?


Why don't the chemtrail believers here ever address this point?



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Witness2008
 


I have a lot more knowledge about aviation than most people do, and more experience with it than a hell of a lot of people. That means that it takes a lot more than "I can see the difference, and have an open mind" to convince me, because unlike most, I actually know what I'm looking at.

Yes, I get paid a bonus for every delusional member I "take care of" on ATS.


Well then, I will leave you to your own experienced eyes.

And thanks so much for the caring attention that you give your fellow ATS members.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DelMarvel
 


Because it happened in real life.






top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join