Operation: Destroy Ignorance: HAARP,Chem-Trails.

reply to post by metalholic


The title is half-right:

This video is not what people are reporting. Nor news stations for that matter.

The title says:

"normal jet contrail with dissipation...."

Yes, that is one example of a contrail. It is not the only example.

Contrails come in many different varieties -- depends on prevailing conditions.

And, contrails don't always form, at all! When conditions are such that they don't form.....compared to when they form, but quickly sublimate ("evaporate").....compared to when they form, and then persist.

It is all a matter of the prevailing conditions, and primarily due to the level of saturation of the air, combined with the temperature.

The science on this is quite clear. Do the proper research, it has been offered up here on ATS countless time already, in many, many, many other threads.

Also, a Web search using keywords such as "persistent" and "contrail" will bring up loads of resources to learn from.

Originally posted by metalholic
This video is not what people are reporting. Nor news stations for that matter.

Indeed - we get that.

That is a fiarly short contrail.

What people are reporting is much longer contrails - and they are saying that they are not contrails at all - check.

Trouble is they certainly look like long contrails - long contrails - lasting more than the minute or 2 sometimes quoted - indeed lasting as long as many hours - are still contrails.

And since these so-called chemtrails all look and behave and are generated in exactly the same way as long contrails, what is it that actually makes them different from chemtrails??

Even Michael Murphy - creator of "What in the World are they Spraying" says that long contrails - "persistent contrails" exist, and that you cant' actually visually tell them apart from chemtrails at all!!



Perhaps you guys could all get together some time and figure out which version you want to all push??

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by metalholic

contrailscience.com...

Your source is another forum. Therefore Source busted!

the original video video shows a piece of paper showing a figure of 68 micrograms of barium per liter - true or false?

The voice over for the video says this is 6.8 parts per million - true or false?

A microgram per liter is not actually a part-per-million - it is a part per billion - true or false?

The EPA limit is 2 parts mer million - true or false?

68 parts per billion is not 3 times the EAP limit - it is actually approximately 1/30th of the EPA limit - true or false?

I'll give you a hint: True, true, true, true, true.

And it is true regardless of where that is published, or who says it.

It is verifiable, checkable, falsifiable, and..ta da...true.

See that is how "true" works - I guess it is a difficult concept for you to comprehend, but you really should try harder - it works much better than pushing hoaxes.

edit on 6-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

I'll say it again that source is busted. Your using another forum to back your claims. If wikipedia is supposedly banned as a viable source then forums deffinately are. I'll give someone the benefit of the doubt using wikipedia before I will someone using another forum.

Idk just makes more logical sense that one is more of a source of information then the other. I guess cause forums prove nothing!

reply to post by ProudBird


Well I did the proper research and I figured I would back up your claims with some proper contrails of my own!

reply to post by metalholic


don't look like contrail to me at all - not coming from the engine for starters - so I'm gonna say you're wrong again

Originally posted by metalholic

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by metalholic

contrailscience.com...

Your source is another forum. Therefore Source busted!

the original video video shows a piece of paper showing a figure of 68 micrograms of barium per liter - true or false?

The voice over for the video says this is 6.8 parts per million - true or false?

A microgram per liter is not actually a part-per-million - it is a part per billion - true or false?

The EPA limit is 2 parts mer million - true or false?

68 parts per billion is not 3 times the EAP limit - it is actually approximately 1/30th of the EPA limit - true or false?

I'll give you a hint: True, true, true, true, true.

And it is true regardless of where that is published, or who says it.

It is verifiable, checkable, falsifiable, and..ta da...true.

See that is how "true" works - I guess it is a difficult concept for you to comprehend, but you really should try harder - it works much better than pushing hoaxes.

edit on 6-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

I'll say it again that source is busted. Your using another forum to back your claims.

I didnt' use another forum to back my claims - I used maths to back my claims - it just so happened the calculations were posted on another forum.

the SOURCE was actually the video itself (for the data), and every math texbook and science textbook in the world that deals in fractions (for the process)

Are you saying the math is wrong if because it is posted on Contrail science?

If wikipedia is supposedly banned as a viable source then forums deffinately are.

Well since wiki is not banned AFAIK I guess that's another thing you are wrong about.

Idk just makes more logical sense that one is more of a source of information then the other. I guess cause forums prove nothing!

The maths is the maths - are you saying that if Contrails science said 1+1=2 then you would say that is not true just because it is on contrail science??

You are making yourself look more than a bit stupid here - I think you should consider the possibility that maths is correct or incorrect regardless of where it is posted.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You didn't get it again!

reply to post by metalholic


Not at all - I get that you are posting a picture of an agricultural sprayer spraying chemicals, saying that it is a contrail, and trying to use snide innuendo and sarcasm to make a point about chemtrails.

Just pointing out that you can't even get that right is all

reply to post by metalholic

..... some proper contrails of my own!

Yeah, in fact I think I've posted that same video in the past. Or, at least, one very similar.

Because, it clearly demonstrates the difference between crop spraying versus actual contrails.

Hope it's obvious to everyone, by now?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Standing on the ground looking a mile up or half a mile up. Tell me what logic are you using to determine a contrail and a chemtrail. After watching the air-tractor you should then decide well if the government were using airline tankers to spray chemicals in the atomsphere. What steps will I go through to weed out chem trails and contrails.

Happy hunting.

I've posted all the steps trials and tribulations and sources you need all through this thread. You've proven time and time again your a HS student who doesn't understand Modern science. Case in point.

My post about using a heat induced laser to heat up a point on the ocean while using HAARP to manipulate the weather current around this laser to induce a hurricane. You told me to go back to HS and learn fundamental scientist.

I'm not meteorologist but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that heat and cold create tornadoes and hurricanes!

Originally posted by metalholic
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Standing on the ground looking a mile up or half a mile up. Tell me what logic are you using to determine a contrail and a chemtrail.

I dont' know what het characteristics of a chemtrail are, so all I can decide is whether "it" looks like a contrail or not.

the characteristics of a contrail are that it comes from an engine, has a gap between its formation and that engine (unless it is from a piston engined a/c in which case the gap may be to short to notice - but it will still be there), it is white and fluffy unless in shadow, and it dissipates after a while that can be anything from a few seconds to several hours.

After watching the air-tractor you should then decide well if the government were using airline tankers to spray chemicals in the atomsphere. What steps will I go through to weed out chem trails and contrails.

Happy hunting.

Sure - have a look at the air tractor - the trail is coming from the entire width of the spray apparatus, which is easily visible.

The same is the case in videos of activities like spraying of agent orange - there is a spray apparatus, and the chemical is coming from it.

There's your first clue.

I've posted all the steps trials and tribulations and sources you need all through this thread. You've proven time and time again your a HS student who doesn't understand Modern science. Case in point.

My post about using a heat induced laser to heat up a point on the ocean while using HAARP to manipulate the weather current around this laser to induce a hurricane. You told me to go back to HS and learn fundamental scientist.

When did you post that?

I don't recall it, don't see anything like it in this thread from you, and I don't recall having read or replying to anything like it.

I'm not meteorologist but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that heat and cold create tornadoes and hurricanes!

Since HAARP doesn't actually manipulate "weather current", and there is no laser in the world that I know of that could generate enough heat to affect the atmosphere on the scale of a hurricane I think that whoever told you to go study science probably had it right.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by metalholic

 

You can use a satelite to either bounce a signal or send a signal into a part of the atmosphere or ocean. I'd say ocean seeing as heat rises and heat and cold come together to create tornadoes and hurricanes. You can then create a storm around this signal. Making it the eye of the storm and guide it to where ever you like.

I think you need a refresher course in high school level science my friend. I think you also need to start addressing the questions people have instead of demanding they prove or disprove your theory. As well, singling out specific users is a no no for starters, and I can tell you for a fact Phage has never denied the existence of haarp.

He, like a few others, would post up relevant information and links about the facility and what it CAN and CAN'T do, and you'd ignore them and claim he has an agenda.

Well sir, your agenda appears to be to steer everyone into watching that video, over and over. and over.

NVM Aloy this is the guy my bad on this one! Coulda swore it was the cartoon of the thread.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You said you don't know what a chemtrail is! Do I need to post the air tractor again?

Watch it and tell me if from a half mile away on the ground you could distinguish if from a contrail?

Btw what is my climatic response gonna be by the time all this information gathering is over with?

Remember there are loads of information posted through out the thread. Don't forget about Tesla's inventions which is where HAARP is derived from!

Originally posted by metalholic
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You said you don't know what a chemtrail is!

no I didn't.

Do I need to post the air tractor again?

Watch it and tell me if from a half mile away on the ground you could distinguish if from a contrail?

I already told you why it doesn't look like a contrail - really you should try to pay attention.....it's just a couple of posts above this one!!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul




So from a mile away looking up into the sky not knowing whether you are looking at a Jet liner or Air tanker you can tell whether it looks like a crop dust trail vs a contrail?

You claim you can even see this apparatus across the wingspan of the plane?

reply to post by metalholic


I can tell I am more than a mile away.

And I can tell that from this distance the trails look exactly like contrails.

And I can tell that if you want to prove that they are or are not contrails from such characteristics as whether they have a gap to the engine then it is not actually dificult to get enough magnification to do so.

Eg see Skystef - I know that no-one using such magnification has managed to provide any pictures other than those that are consistent with contrails.

I also know that if the a/c is spraying something like the Air Tractor then it will have highly visible apparatus for doing so.

AFAIK no such apparatus has been identified as being fitted to any commercial aircraft other than actual tankers.

I also know that you are about to try to get me to prove that contrails are contrails, and tell me that I cant' prove they are contrails.

But then I know that I don't have to prove that they are contrails. Contrail are known to exist - this video has all the characteristics of contrails - unless you can show that something other than contrails exists that mimics contrails in all the respects that are visible in such a video then it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that they are contrails.

I also know you won't accept that - but of course you've been wrong about so much lately that that is no surprise either!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul




There not contrails being reported in the news buddy! Here's the proof make sure you keep your attention on the old contrails!

Also doesn't these contrails seem about as thick and wide as a crop duster trail? So tell me again that your gonna distinguish from a mile away standing on your porch the difference between chemtrails and contrails.

Especially if these contrails are in areas with little to no airline traffic. and last for hrs. with little to no dissipation. Yet there not chemtrails right?

reply to post by metalholic


Don't look like duster trails at all to me - they are obviously not coming from any spraying apparatus.

And because I am capable of processing all the information, including the context of an airshow exhibition, it is also easy for me to conclude they are not contrails.

Are you now trying to tell us that airshow smoke trails are chemtrails? It's been tried before of course - just wondering if you know how to use the search function is all......

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I guess you take me for the regular bafoon that gets on here after a long day at school and spends all day on youtube finding videos to put on here to make a mockery of anybody actually keeping an eye on the world around them!

Sorry that's not true. I know whats right and not right. I've studied the world around me from a small pup. I know how nature works. I know how science works. I know how religion works. I also know how psychology works.

I also know why and how aliens would come to earth. Via all my alien posts and threads.

I also know the difference between planets stars airplanes and baloons including stuff that isn't earthly.

I also know the difference between chemtrails and contrails. Getting on here and b/sing me that there is no unclassified proof of chemtrails is b/s to me. Telling me that chemtrails are not tied into HAARP is b/s to me.

Wanna know why?

Because I know psychology I can watch discovery channel history channel science channel any documentary put in front of me and tell you what exactly is a lie and what is truth. I can also tell you information that the documentary failed to see and why they failed to see it.

I can also break down all the experts in the show and tell you exactly what there hiding and why. You know how I know that?

Because all my life I have done nothing but break down the world and people around me want me to tell you how it works?

Your supposed to attack people like me to keep us from starting an uproar with the populace someone like me is dangerous. My intelligence is so dangerous people like you have been programmed to be so blind to truth. That even if the same people who are b/sing you are telling you I'm right. You will always cling to what they said the first time.

That is how they keep the sheep in line you see. You cannot see a friggin thing I have tried to prove through out this thread. You cannot see through the lies and deceptions of the mainstream media.

The government will lie to you and in the same sentence tell you the truth and back it up with a lie. You will then walk away believing the lies because that is all you remember.

It's psychological warfare. Then they recruit people like me. To make sure people like you remain ignorant to the fact!

Now tell me where my thread is going?

What got me the most curious about the chemtrail vs contrail issue is simply based on observations. Maybe someone can shed some light on what I'm seeing.

I live in a city that produces jets, in fact we're called the jet city. We have a major airport as well as military bases nearby (major one to the North and another to the South as well as one to the West). We see and hear them all day long every few minutes. I have noticed on some days I will see one airplane take off and notice it's contrail dissipates quickly. Then several minutes later see another plane taking off and it's contrail does not dissipate. Yes this could be completely normal, but it still seems odd to me. In fact I've seen several jets from different directions at the same time, one trail dissipates the other does not.

I also notice that the contrails at times appear to sink very very rapidly. I'm not sure if this is a natural condition based on heavy ice crystals or what. But can you see why I'm at least curious?