What in the World are They Spraying [Official Trailer]

reply to post by Essan

I apologize for my terse response. I'm glad it made it through moderation - I'm sure it was a close call.

If you're going to point to a 100+ page document and expect me to take you seriously, you're going to have to show that you understand where I'm coming from and know what you're talking about.

I have made it clear in this thread that I use recognized contrail science including the NASA appleman chart and its successor.

Please go ahead and explain to me exactly how this paper completely negates this legitimate science.

My main standing point is the -35C requirement for any possibility of contrail formation. This doesn't even take into account pressure and humidity. Do you claim that contrails can form above -35C, based on the paper?

Thanks

reply to post by weedwhacker

A video, of clouds "not even made by planes"!!!

You saw the spiral cloud inside the larger obvious L-shaped chem-cloud, right? Yeah, that's normal.

[edit on 2010-6-9 by sandwiches]

Originally posted by sandwiches
reply to post by Essan

In what way are they drastic, random or impossible? And by impossible I assume you mean inexplicable by meteorologists and atmospheric scientists? But have you actually asked such people if what these videos show is possible?

(and btw your local TV weather presenter is probably not a meteorologist)

Well the stupid question is: if you see a strange bird in your garden, and photograph it, do you ask an ornotholoigist what it is, and accept their answer? Or do you refute their answer and claim it's something else entirely?

reply to post by sandwiches


No...

You saw the spiral cloud inside the larger obvious L-shaped chem-cloud, right? Yeah, that's normal.

No...

Clouds come in an infinite variety of shapes. You have NO WAY of knowing the winds that are acting upon them, and adding to the shaping. AIR is invisible, isn't it? Wind blows, invisibly...except, of course, when we see its effects, then we know it's from wind, or other natural forces.

Honestly, this time I found a computer with a sound card and listened to that nutter, 'Cliff Carnicorn'. He's a loon.

About the only thing he gets right is in his description of lightning, and so forth...is the fact that it's electrical in nature!!

But then, the way he seems to think, somehow there's some magic "stuff" able to be "sprayed" in mass quantities (which I have repeatedly shown to be beyond our technology, and to be totally impractical) that "electrifies" the atmosphere!! AND, he thinks that lightning, somehow, comes first, and CAUSES the weather!! He is way, way off....

He's got bats in his belfry, mate. Really 'round the bend, he is....

All of that is pseudo-scientific claptrap, especially the "aerosols" nonsense, in connection with the USAF. AND the HAARP baloney. It is JUNK, JUNK, JUNK and not worth anyone's time; not for any rational, educated thinking adult, anyway.



[edit on 9 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker

Well, I obviously disagree with your observations but we don't have to agree. No harm in some polite banter as long as everyone can keep their cool.

JUNK, JUNK, JUNK and not worth anyone's time

Bit hypocritical, don't you think?

reply to post by sandwiches


No, obviously you can believe anything you want, it's your right as a free individual. (Even if you lived in a totalitarian regime, you could still believe anything you wished...just would be compelled to keep it to yourself, if it wasn't part of the "approved" regime's credo...)


You could ALSO feel free to believe in elves, dragons, flat Earth, Hollow Earth, the Purple Multi-Armed Spaghetti God up in the sky, that has total control over your destiny....if you wished to believe in such things.

Doesn't mean that any of it is actually TRUE, though.

Science, on the other hand, DOES provide a solid foundation that does NOT require a "belief" system to be in place. Science is observable, repeatable and predictable...and WHEN (because it does happen) an observation is encountered, or measured, that is contrary to the original expectation, of a given scientific principle, then the SCIENCE learns, and adjusts and gets educated, to further refine the definition.

Science doesn't "guess", and when faced with something different than predicted, it doesn't abandon the old concepts.... it grows...from additional knowledge. AND expands the starting concept, with the new information, to get a better grasp, and understanding.

BUT..."chemtrail" believers, on the other hand...REJECT science, and reason, and logic....in favor OF their incredibly impractical, and illogical "beliefs"..."beliefs" lacking any substance whatsoever.

Just like believing in the Purple Multi-Armed Spaghetti God might seem to comfort one who is predisposed to "believe" in that, the rest of humanity will only :shk: and tend to sidle away...giving that individual a LOT more room, and less attention, and certainly won't see them as having any crediblity.

Those kinds of people I would tend to shun, too......




[edit on 9 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker

Prepare thyself for pwnage.

No, obviously you can believe anything you want, it's your right as a free individual.

You don't appear to honestly believe that.

(Even if you lived in a totalitarian regime, you could still believe anything you wished...just would be compelled to keep it to yourself, if it wasn't part of the "approved" regime's credo...)

What interest do you have in making sure ATS discussion is focused on denying chetmrails?

You could ALSO feel free to believe in elves, dragons, flat Earth, Hollow Earth, the Purple Multi-Armed Spaghetti God up in the sky, that has total control over your destiny....if you wished to believe in such things.

Thank you. I would appreciate that freedom were you to ever become dictator of the world.

Science, on the other hand, DOES provide a solid foundation that does NOT require a "belief" system to be in place. Science is observable, repeatable and predictable...

What science have you presented? What contrail charts do you use? Just arbitrarily declaring things and making up lies about people doesn't make you an expert. When are you actually going to do some legwork to prove the science I promote wrong? Where is YOUR scientific process, sir?

Science doesn't "guess", and when faced with something different than predicted, it doesn't abandon the old concepts.... it grows...from additional knowledge. AND expands the starting concept, with the new information, to get a better grasp, and understanding.

Hence the contrail science review in 1992. Again, what part of contrail formation science do you not understand? Wait, are you a contrail expert or a cloud expert? Both? When did you start learning this stuff and where did you learn it from? Educate us.

BUT..."chemtrail" believers, on the other hand...REJECT science, and reason, and logic....in favor OF their incredibly impractical, and illogical "beliefs"..."beliefs" lacking any substance whatsoever.

And chemtrail deniers present papers and links and assume it means they don't have to do anything to actually prove their claims within context.

Just like believing in the Purple Multi-Armed Spaghetti God might seem to comfort one who is predisposed to "believe" in that, the rest of humanity will only and tend to sidle away...giving that individual a LOT more room, and less attention, and certainly won't see them as having any crediblity.

I wonder what people think about those who completely ignore NASA / USAF contrail formation science?

Those kinds of people I would tend to shun, too......

I don't shun you. We're cool. Again, we don't have to agree.

reply to post by sandwiches


Dude, you are hilarious! "pwned"! Truly, truly funny...High School level funny...

"NASA / USAF Contrail Science'? Yes, I (and a whole host of others) actually understand it.

From your own signature (until you modify it...quick!):

Not what it says in your siggy, but this is the link to YOUR thread where you display a complete lack of "NASA Contrail Science"

To pull a quote from Geroge W. Bush: "Heckuva a job, Brownie!"

But, most damaging to your credibility, is this signature bit:

Alison Kruse is not a hoax.

Falls in line with the rest of your "beliefs".... and based on the other links, in signature too. Self-promote much?



[edit on 9 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker

You'd like me to pull my sig, wouldn't ya? Wouldn't ya??

Well, mate, I suppose you aren't going to take me up in a debate involving respect and actual science and will continue to spout claims that mean nothing. It's a shame ATS allows this trolling, but what can ya do?

Peace

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by sandwiches

 

Oh, and STILL with Appleman? Now I know you aren't reading my links...Appleman is ONE tool, but not a complete tool.

I can think of another tool, a really complete tool. Doesn't understand the concept of "forecast" or "predict". Thinks it means "100% certainty". Which it never has.

reply to post by stars15k

I can think of another tool, a really complete tool. Doesn't understand the concept of "forecast" or "predict". Thinks it means "100% certainty". Which it never has.

The appleman chart's 98% prediction of NO contrails is sufficient to show a glaring discrepancy between what should be seen and what is seen.

Show me some evidence supporting contrail formation above -35C.

Originally posted by sandwiches

A video, of clouds "not even made by planes"!!!

You saw the spiral cloud inside the larger obvious L-shaped chem-cloud, right? Yeah, that's normal.

[edit on 2010-6-9 by sandwiches]

Yes, clouds. A spiral cloud is not unheard of, and I seen one go through the complete morph from a stratus through the wave activity of counter directional winds into a complete Helmholtz-Kelvin wave through to a complete spiral (like a phone cord). And I knew it was clouds, and I knew the mechanism of it's formation and the rarity of the event.
"Chemclouds" are impossible to produce. You've seen my video about volume, right? To think they do shows you are NOT thinking about the possibility of clouds in your sky. "L-Shaped"? Completely possible. Happens along a front, or when wind blows part of a large cloud. Wind moves in waves and different directions. You've seen my video on that, too.
Cherry-picking your science doesn't work. Either learn the science or remain ignorant, but learn ALL of it, not just the one part you (wrongly) see as a chink in the armour.

reply to post by stars15k

I admire the effort you put into your post this time. Good to see you are working hard to deny ignorance.

What about the following, from the video?

1. The Z shape - do planes even fly like that? lol. Looks systematic and deliberate to me. Notice the "fuzziness" in the bottom elbow. Was it charged?
2. The "power cord trails". Seriously? Two contrails just happening to connect two other sections of "cloud", completely vertically? I guess the pilots were doing stunt maneuvers over those houses AND conditions were perfect
3. The "twisted" trail, which was obviously charged with energy at some point.
4. The "contrail" where the end separates and spreads out into a huge cloud 10 mins later.

Perhaps I was wrong. There's a lot you're ignoring.

[edit on 2010-6-9 by sandwiches]

reply to post by sandwiches


Do you willfully wish to remain ignorant of science?

WHY do you think you can show the same ridiculous 'Carnicorn' video to someone else, and get diffferent answers??

Based on the inane comments, below...you obviously are listening to that fraud, as he narrates??

Let's look:

1. The Z shape - do planes even fly like that? lol. Looks systematic and deliberate to me. Notice the "fuzziness" in the bottom elbow. Was it charged?

What "Z shape"? "fuzziness"? "elbow"?

You just have no idea what you're looking at, do you? See, you are so programmed (by 'Carnicorn', and people like him) that you can't see regular, if slightly interestingly shaped (due to winds, again) contrails.

Around 1:15 - 1:25, is THAT where you think you see a 'Z'? What youy see are contrials that have been 'moved' by air movement. "Fuzzy' on the edges? Serious? Come on...LOOK at clouds!!

2. The "power cord trails". Seriously? Two contrails just happening to connect two other sections of "cloud", completely vertically? I guess the pilots were doing stunt maneuvers over those houses AND conditions were perfect

I watch the video, I see the caption for "Power Cords" and have no idea what the idiot is trying to point out. At 1:50, by my notes.

I see a sign for Christmas Trees for sale, I see telephone poles and wires, and a few contrail fragments. It looks perfectly normal.

Sometimes, I wonder WHY people can look at the same image, and interpret it so wrongly. (Hint: The contrials are horizontal...perhpas you have an illusion, and are thinking they are pointing down to the ground, or something?? Is that it??)



Now, this next is truly puzzling....there is no "obvious" thing, at all, to people who have looked at clouds for as long as most of us have...

3. The "twisted" trail, which was obviously charged with energy at some point.

Finally...THIS IS WHAT sometimes happens, with or WITHOUT contrails present! We've been over, and over this already...dozens of times. It's a natural function of our atmosphere, and its changeability. It's called 'weather'....

4. The "contrail" where the end separates and spreads out into a huge cloud 10 mins later.

He even "summarizes", dropping MORE bad junk-science, that has no basis in fact, near the end...the "enormous implications" of what he calls "magnetically manipulating" the atmosphere? He is either an idiot, or most likely....he is

...a charlatan!!! And, as a charlatan, 'Carnicorn' is preying on people's misunderstandings, and lack of science knowledge...he counts on that, for his modern-day version of 'snake oil' he sells.








[edit on 9 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by sandwiches


One of the things that you seem not to understand is the other factors involved in the formation of a contrail. If you looked up ALL the science involved you would know that the factors of formation and persistence include saturation pressure of liquid water or ice, size of the nucleation particle, type of the nucleating particle, number of nucleating particles, particles from the ambient atmosphere, growth rate of particles, freezing rate of particles, sulfur content of fuel, , coating of particles, whether the particle is hydrophyllic or hydrophobic, shape of particle, wind conditons, temperature of the engne.....and more. All can play a role in the temperature needed to form a contrail.
Appleman's math is for forecasting or predicting contrails based on saturation and temperature. All of the other things I've mentioned can and do play a role if a contrail will form and it's persistence. It's why persistence is constantly being studied. Our knowledge about contrails has grown and is still growing.
Appleman's is Contrail for Dummies; really understanding the process is real advanced science.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Hey, it's my footage, so please remain respectful. (Doesn't seem possible for you). The related Carnicom voice-over was hastily-obtained from his video Aerosol Crimes.

Again, we don't have to agree, and I'm not going to waste my time responding if you can't be nice.

reply to post by stars15k

Admirable again. Work it.

Appleman's is Contrail for Dummies; really understanding the process is real advanced science.

Why bother getting complicated when the appleman chart is sufficient? Do you think physics have changed since it's inception? If you care about updates to engine technology, use the updated method ETACFCST where the variable exists for engine data, or modify the appleman algorithm yourself to account for the varied exhaust. Personally, I find the -35C requirement just fine to prove the existence chemtrails, but altitude requirements can be further brought much higher by considering pressure and humidity.

By studying the science and atmospheric sounding data, anyone will agree that contrails never form below about 10,000 ft. Therefore, when you see a "contrail", take its altitude. If it's below 10,000 ft you have a chemtrail

What could be simpler?

Respect.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by kbeet

I responded on your thread with my thoughts. I expect you might be removed for being off-topic, but don't take it personally. It's just the moderators who do their best to keep things organized.

reply to post by sandwiches


Like I've already said: Appleman's math is Contrails for Dummies.
It works, as a basis for predicting the formation and persistence of contrail. But those of us who want to understand contrails, we've advanced our learning.
You choosing to accept it as the final word only shows you choose to be wrong.

Originally posted by sandwiches
reply to post by stars15k

By studying the science and atmospheric sounding data, anyone will agree that contrails never form below about 10,000 ft. Therefore, when you see a "contrail", take its altitude. If it's below 10,000 ft you have a chemtrail

What could be simpler?

Respect.

Simple....you are wrong, again. It's conditions, working in tandem with all other factors. Contrails can form from pressure, when the pressures are right, no matter the altitude. Contrails form during take-off in polar regions. Well below 10,000 feet.
And not "anyone" will agree with you. You are wrong, and all the other science involved shows it.
You cannot have a "chemtrail" unless you can prove the "chem". No credible test has shown that yet.