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.
Originally posted by Uncinus
Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
All I asked is if it has happend before, why can't it be happening now? Very simple question and all you debunkers can say is there's no evidence.
Mammoths roamed the tundra before, why can't they now? All you skeptic say is there's no evidence of mammoths.
Scientists aim to bring mammoth back to life
A team of researchers will attempt to resurrect the species using cloning technologies after obtaining tissue this summer from the carcass of a mammoth preserved in a Russian mammoth research laboratory. It has already established a technique to extract DNA from frozen cells.
Exhaust vapour trails or contrails usually occur above 8000 metres (26,000 feet), and only if the temperature there is below −40 °C (−40 °F).[3]
On long-haul routes, commercial aircraft usually reach altitudes of 10 to 12 km, where temperatures are typically below -40°C. Planes on these routes therefore tend to leave contrails behind them. Over the British Isles, trails rarely form below about 8 km in summer, 6 km in winter. When the weather is as cold as it often is in mid-winter in Alaska, Siberia and central Canada, contrails can even form at ground level. Indeed, airfields in these regions have sometimes had to be closed when low-level clouds (ice fogs) composed of aircraft-generated ice crystals have proved persistent.
Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
It's not altitude, it's temperature and humidity. About -40, and 70% RH (100% RHI).
You get contrails at ground level in canada.
The chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some trails left by aircraft are actually chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for a purpose undisclosed to the general public in clandestine programs directed by government officials
Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
Well, maybe you'd like to edit wikipedia.
People do claim "chemtrails" occur at low altitude. Nobody has ever produced any photographic or video evidence of this though. All the picture I've seen look like high altitude contrails
The theory: The white lines of condensed water vapor that jets leave in the sky, called contrails, are actually a toxic substance the government deliberately sprays on an unsuspecting populace.
Originally posted by Uncinus
But I think all this talk to definitions really is not helping.
Originally posted by firepilot
Actually altitude does play a part, because the thinner the air is, the less water it can hold, before it becomes saturated.
However, since the air density at a given altitude can change with fluctuations in air pressure, you really have to know the true air pressure at that altitude, which gets plugged into the contrail prediction chart.
asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...
Its still not an exact tool because even the type of jet engine can have an effect too
Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
How are we supposed to rationally debate chemtrails when the very defintion of chemtrails varies both amoung "chemtrailers" and "debunkers" and many websites?
Originally posted by adeclerk
Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
How are we supposed to rationally debate chemtrails when the very defintion of chemtrails varies both amoung "chemtrailers" and "debunkers" and many websites?
Now we may be able to get somewhere. Can you tell me why the definition varies? Is it because the whole chemtrail concept is bunk made to make money, perhaps?
Originally posted by adeclerk
Now we may be able to get somewhere. Can you tell me why the definition varies? Is it because the whole chemtrail concept is bunk made to make money, perhaps?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by adeclerk
Now we may be able to get somewhere. Can you tell me why the definition varies? Is it because the whole chemtrail concept is bunk made to make money, perhaps?
Or because there is a deliberate DoD-sponsored disinformation campaign against chemtrails, and there is poison in the well coming from all directions?
Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Originally posted by adeclerk
Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
How are we supposed to rationally debate chemtrails when the very defintion of chemtrails varies both amoung "chemtrailers" and "debunkers" and many websites?
Now we may be able to get somewhere. Can you tell me why the definition varies? Is it because the whole chemtrail concept is bunk made to make money, perhaps?
Well, it varies because it does on many sites and in many opinions on both sides of the fence.
Talk about stating the obvious.
Originally posted by adeclerk
Follow the money....right back to that hoaxer Clifford Carnicorn.
Originally posted by adeclerk
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by adeclerk
Now we may be able to get somewhere. Can you tell me why the definition varies? Is it because the whole chemtrail concept is bunk made to make money, perhaps?
Or because there is a deliberate DoD-sponsored disinformation campaign against chemtrails, and there is poison in the well coming from all directions?
Follow the money....right back to that hoaxer Clifford Carnicorn.
Originally posted by wcitizen
Originally posted by adeclerk
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by adeclerk
Now we may be able to get somewhere. Can you tell me why the definition varies? Is it because the whole chemtrail concept is bunk made to make money, perhaps?
Or because there is a deliberate DoD-sponsored disinformation campaign against chemtrails, and there is poison in the well coming from all directions?
Follow the money....right back to that hoaxer Clifford Carnicorn.
Can you provide evidence for that accusation, please?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by adeclerk
Follow the money....right back to that hoaxer Clifford Carnicorn.
The Pentagon has many, many, many times the money flowing through its halls than any "known hoaxer" you'd like to point out will ever have. You don't follow money.