Chemtrail Debunkers....

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Originally posted by firepilot
I think your first video debunked the chemtrail conspiracy, good job!

Talked about how combat aircraft can use chaff to confuse an enemy radar or missile.
Mentions how it can take quite a while to come down. Chemmies think something released instantly goes to the ground.
Goes into how is strips of mylar coating with aluminum. oops, so much for the chemmies mantra of chaff being powder or a liquid.
Those videos had absolutely nothing to do with your chemtrail religion however. But they were informative about telling people what chaff ACTUALLY is, compared what the chemmie websites CLAIM

Again I disagree, it has everything to do with the chemtrail theories. It is not a religion and I think it's disrespectful of you to imply that. Just as chaff containing aluminum disrupts radar images. So to would persistent contrail clouds containing aluminum.

edit on 21-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: edit text

I, and others, will continue to refer to it as a religion. You all have FAITH that it is going on, inspite of no concrete evidence of it. When your chemtrail belief is attacked or debunked, you all get upset over it, just like how people react when their religion is attacked.

Sorry, but it is very much a faith based belief system you have. And like for many who are rather religious, they will eschew science anytime it is in opposition to that closely held belief. So if you do not like chemtrails being called a religion, then you all should quite having such religious type zeal about your faith in being sprayed.

Someday you will have to learn how a weather radar works. And no, release of some metal powder is not going to show up on it either.

Originally posted by firepilot
NO, you are yet again entirely incorrect and just trying to cling to anything. And besides, if your chemtrail religion was true and there was all this aluminum being released (which there is not) and it would show up on radar (which it would not), then you would have this stuff on weather radars all the time.

Particulate matter does not show up on radars. Nor do clouds either, do you understand why clouds do not show up on radar but rain will?

First, you disrespectfully used the phrase chemtrail religion. I won't be responding to disrespectful posts such as yours any longer.
Second, I am not incorrect your opinion that I am incorrect is incorrect.
Third I specifically said aluminum not particulate.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
[Third I specifically said aluminum not particulate.

so what is it then?

reply to post by firepilot


I will respond to your blank post. Since that seems to be the typical value of your posting content. I would argue that your belief in persistent contrails is based on faith also and you also get upset when someone challenges your false beliefs in unsubstantiated so called scientific claims. NASA and all others scientific agencies admit that the science behind persistent contrails is limited, inaccurate and flawed. Yet you stand there and claim it's method are proven scientific facts. PROVE IT

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
[Third I specifically said aluminum not particulate.

so what is it then?

What is what? If you understand the context of the conversation it should be obvious. I said "if" someone sees a persistent contrail and they suspect that the clouds are chemtrails, one way to check is by using Dopplar radar and infra red satellite images. If the clouds have aluminum in them they will show up similkar to the way that chaff shows up. I will be back later I have some other matters to attend to. And some other things I want to read other than argumentative comments.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


If the aluminium is not particulates, what form does it take? Gas? fluid?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Quote:Starting in the 1960's jet airliners become much more common - and, therefore so did persistant contrails.
OK so you have given a date there 1960's so why are they not in cartoons produced in the 70's 80's 90's if like you say persistent contrail's have been noted in the 1960's.
like you said its in cars because it is normal and has been noted since the 1960s then it would also be present in the earlier cartoons skyline which don't have them.
Therefore the fact that they are missing from earlier cartoon's just goes to show that the fact they have been put in car's is strange.why now one must ask himself?

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

I'm not sure how you are connecting this information to chemtrails. If you please, could you "connect some of the dots" a little for us so we don't need to guess (and perhaps guess wrong) at the connection you are trying to make. That would be helpful -- Thanks.

As for TARFOX itself, TARFOX (at least according to the info you provided) seems to be interested in measuring aerosol properties from industrial air pollution. I suppose that normal air travel can help contribute to pollution (and for that matter, automobile exhaust), but I would think most of what they are measuring is industrial haze because they are probably the largest producers of aerosol radiation.

...but still -- please help me understand what you say is TARFOX's connection to chemtrails.

edit on 3/21/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

TARFOX's connection to chemtrails IMO , is that it was the study used to help develop the techniques behind some of the suggested purposes involved with chemtrails. I also think that the TARFOX studies used small tests of there own aerosol dispersals. But that is just speculation on my part. The TARFOX study occurred between 1996 and 1997. The exact same time when the chemtrail phenomenon started to surface.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by firepilot

 

I will respond to your blank post. Since that seems to be the typical value of your posting content. I would argue that your belief in persistent contrails is based on faith also and you also get upset when someone challenges your false beliefs in unsubstantiated so called scientific claims. NASA and all others scientific agencies admit that the science behind persistent contrails is limited, inaccurate and flawed. Yet you stand there and claim it's method are proven scientific facts.

PROVE IT

Aircraft making persistent contrails is not a faith based belief. Its proven scientific fact. Cirrus clouds are not a faith.

Lets see, you dont know where the airplanes are based at, you dont know what kind of airplanes they are, you dont even have evidence of aluminum being sprayed, you have never seen a plane modified for this.

Its not faith that its very cold up high. its not faith that combustion releases water. You have no evidence that contrails are anything but water, but you have faith in it, via the chemtrail church and the sacred texts of aircrap and youtube.

So which is it? Do you think it is actually warm and balmy up high? Do you think that combustion does not really release water? Do you believe cirrus clouds are just a plot against you?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

If the aluminium is not particulates, what form does it take? Gas? fluid?

Let me clarify my statement. Even though I am pretty sure you are just being argumentative for the sake of arguing. The aluminum is in a particulate form. Specifically, it is in a highly concentrated amount during the period that it is in a persistent contrail that forms a visible cloud. Are we clear now as to why it should be able to appear on Dopplar radar? If particulates are not dispersed and spread out to thin. Especially aluminum particulates, they should appear on Dopplar radar similar to the way chaff does.

reply to post by djcarlosa

Are you really suggesting that since you cannot find any cartoons from the 1960's which show contrails it means that they didn't exist? Because you can't find a picture from a cartoon it invalidates all the other real images?

Cartoons are "evidence" now? Cartoons? Really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Not even "evidence", but because something is not found in a cartoon it means it doesn't exist?

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Quote:Starting in the 1960's jet airliners become much more common - and, therefore so did persistant contrails.
OK so you have given a date there 1960's so why are they not in cartoons produced in the 70's 80's 90's if like you say persistent contrail's have been noted in the 1960's.
like you said its in cars because it is normal and has been noted since the 1960s then it would also be present in the earlier cartoons skyline which don't have them.

Err....because they were uncommon......so why would they?

But, that said, are you completely sure that there are not _any_ contrails in _any_ cartoons from the 1960's or 70's?

I have no idea - but there were an awful lot of cartoons drawn in those decades.

Therefore the fact that they are missing from earlier cartoon's just goes to show that the fact they have been put in car's is strange.why now one must ask himself?

I see no reason to leap to a conclusion that it is strange.

Contrails are a fact in the skies so it would be strange if they NEVER appeared. A few scenes with contrails in some cartoons, from the millions of scenes of sky in cartoons, seems like gross UNDER-representation of them.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

If the aluminium is not particulates, what form does it take? Gas? fluid?

Let me clarify my statement. Even though I am pretty sure you are just being argumentative for the sake of arguing. The aluminum is in a particulate form. Specifically, it is in a highly concentrated amount during the period that it is in a persistent contrail that forms a visible cloud. Are we clear now as to why it should be able to appear on Dopplar radar? If particulates are not dispersed and spread out to thin. Especially aluminum particulates, they should appear on Dopplar radar similar to the way chaff does.

No, they wont. I told you that already, and its for the same reason that clouds do not show up on radar.

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by firepilot

 

I will respond to your blank post. Since that seems to be the typical value of your posting content. I would argue that your belief in persistent contrails is based on faith also and you also get upset when someone challenges your false beliefs in unsubstantiated so called scientific claims. NASA and all others scientific agencies admit that the science behind persistent contrails is limited, inaccurate and flawed. Yet you stand there and claim it's method are proven scientific facts.

PROVE IT

Aircraft making persistent contrails is not a faith based belief. Its proven scientific fact. Cirrus clouds are not a faith.

Lets see, you dont know where the airplanes are based at, you dont know what kind of airplanes they are, you dont even have evidence of aluminum being sprayed, you have never seen a plane modified for this.

Its not faith that its very cold up high. its not faith that combustion releases water. You have no evidence that contrails are anything but water, but you have faith in it, via the chemtrail church and the sacred texts of aircrap and youtube.

So which is it? Do you think it is actually warm and balmy up high? Do you think that combustion does not really release water? Do you believe cirrus clouds are just a plot against you?

I have evidence based opinions about who and where the airplanes are based with and at.

Video and Satellite View of Evergreen Planes with Aerosol Tanks Attached
Click here for a satellite view of Pinal Airpark in Marana, AZ, which includes living quarters with a swimming pool. You can zoom in all the way and there are crystal clear images of various sized planes (some of which have extra tanks attached to the back), Apaches, , Humvees, storage tanks. It’s all there.

Mathias, are you serious or just pulling everyones leg?

Why do you post a video that you can see right there without even clicking on it, ITS MISSING ITS ENGINES.

Now please, tell everyone here, how a plane with no engines and parts taken off of it will fly. i am sure even the chemmies would like to hear how that plane will magically fly.

Aerosol tanks in the back?? Those are called jet engines. Why are you trying to mislead people and spread such blatant misinfo.

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

If the aluminium is not particulates, what form does it take? Gas? fluid?

Let me clarify my statement. Even though I am pretty sure you are just being argumentative for the sake of arguing. The aluminum is in a particulate form. Specifically, it is in a highly concentrated amount during the period that it is in a persistent contrail that forms a visible cloud. Are we clear now as to why it should be able to appear on Dopplar radar? If particulates are not dispersed and spread out to thin. Especially aluminum particulates, they should appear on Dopplar radar similar to the way chaff does.

No, they wont. I told you that already, and its for the same reason that clouds do not show up on radar.

So far you have shown no proof that I am wrong. Like I said before...PROVE IT. Otherwise it's just your faith based opinion. Your persistent contrail "religion" is based on faulty predictions, limited study and inaccurate data. SHow me proof that PERSISTENT CONTRAIL science NOT contrail science is accurate, provable and predictable. Show me proof that high concentrations of aluminum particulates do not appear visible on radar.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

If the aluminium is not particulates, what form does it take? Gas? fluid?

Let me clarify my statement. Even though I am pretty sure you are just being argumentative for the sake of arguing.

not at all - you made a statement I did not understand.

The aluminum is in a particulate form.

so you are retracting your earlier statement that it is NOT in particulate form?

You did go to some effort to say they were NOT particulate

I can sort of accept that aluminium particles might reflect radar - obviously chaff does, although you seem to be implying that these particles are much smaller than chaff, which would inherently make them less reflective.

and of course you still haven't actually shown tha they exist in the first place - you are still trying to play the "20 questions" game where you dont' actually say how you conclude that somethnig is happening.

Heck, you don't even say what it is you think IS happening - any time someone asks a specific question you say "I never said that" or words to that effect.

So Matty, exactly WHAT is it that you think is happening??

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

If the aluminium is not particulates, what form does it take? Gas? fluid?

Let me clarify my statement. Even though I am pretty sure you are just being argumentative for the sake of arguing. The aluminum is in a particulate form. Specifically, it is in a highly concentrated amount during the period that it is in a persistent contrail that forms a visible cloud. Are we clear now as to why it should be able to appear on Dopplar radar? If particulates are not dispersed and spread out to thin. Especially aluminum particulates, they should appear on Dopplar radar similar to the way chaff does.

No, they wont. I told you that already, and its for the same reason that clouds do not show up on radar.

So far you have shown no proof that I am wrong. Like I said before...PROVE IT. Otherwise it's just your faith based opinion. Your persistent contrail "religion" is based on faulty predictions, limited study and inaccurate data. SHow me proof that PERSISTENT CONTRAIL science NOT contrail science is accurate, provable and predictable. Show me proof that high concentrations of aluminum particulates do not appear visible on radar.

Mathia, again, its for the same reasons that clouds do not show up on radar. You do not want things like dust and clouds, and your chemtrail religion aluminum powder either. It has to do with PARTICLE SIZE. Weather radars specifically use a frequency that is optimized for resonance of objects of raindrop size, and thats intentional.

A weather radar is not a magical voodoo device that just shows anything out there. It is carefully designed and engineered exactly to give what you want to see for precipitation. Not clouds, not dust storms either, and not some mythological aluminum dumping. I know this science stuff is not easy for you, but it has to do with frequency of the radar wave, and resonance. If a weather radar would reflect particles in the atmosphere, it would be worthless, since dust and particles are always in the air.

And didnt someone else pose the question to you multiple times, that since you have faith that aluminum is dumped on it, and since you believe that contrails are actually aluminum clouds, so shouldnt pretty much every radar have this stuff on it?

And I hate to be the bringer of bad news, but any dust sample you take outside, is going to have aluminum in it already. Aluminum is in the air, and is present naturally in dust

Originally posted by firepilot
Mathias, are you serious or just pulling everyones leg?

Why do you post a video that you can see right there without even clicking on it, ITS MISSING ITS ENGINES.

Now please, tell everyone here, how a plane with no engines and parts taken off of it will fly. i am sure even the chemmies would like to hear how that plane will magically fly.

Aerosol tanks in the back?? Those are called jet engines. Why are you trying to mislead people and spread such blatant misinfo.

edit on 21-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

I'm not misleading anyone. The video was not made by me. I didn't want to repost the same link that was posted earlier on Evergreen Aviation and then be accused of spamming by you. So I am only hinting and reminding you of the previous article that was shared by (forgive me if I get the name wrong) ATS member name Toots. I am not here to answer your questions or explain things to you. Especially if you're going to just attempt to disregard my answers without first exploring it and the evidence. In fact I asked that you not interrupt my conversations with other members in the OP. Go ask someone else if you don't get it.