Chemtrail Debunkers....

reply to post by tommyjo


and while he's at it I hope he remembers to include the wiki article on Pinal Airpark as evidence of its secret status - en.wikipedia.org... and upgrade the Western Army National Guard Aviation Training Site to a super secret black ops outfit - www.globalsecurity.org...

He won't have to invent too much for the the U.S. Special Operations Command's Parachute Training and Testing Facility that is based there tho - even though everyone knows about it.....

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Why don't you ask the original photographer?

You were told how to contact him...

You and I know he isn't going to do that? He will simply throw it back in your face to do it yourself. Of course Mathius will actually believe that William Appleton has been paid a lot of money to photo shop and re-load the image.

Suggestion to Mathius.

If you believe that the image has been altered then William Appleton is in violation of his Airliners Terms and Conditions.

From the T&Cs of Airliners.

www.airliners.net...

Can I send in digitally enhanced/composite photos?

No, Airliners.net does not accept photos that have been altered in any way.

So there you go Mathius, you can report the photographer for uploading a fake and falsified image. An image that would have got through Airliners rigorous screening and uploading process. Mathius, will you be claiming that Airliners are now part of the conspiracy? The great conspiracy to keep you from getting to the 'truth'?

Over to you, Mathius!

TJ

Originally posted by tommyjo

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Why don't you ask the original photographer?

You were told how to contact him...

You and I know he isn't going to do that?

Yep

Suggestion to Mathius.

If you believe that the image has been altered then William Appleton is in violation of his Airliners Terms and Conditions.

From the T&Cs of Airliners.

www.airliners.net...

Can I send in digitally enhanced/composite photos?

No, Airliners.net does not accept photos that have been altered in any way.

So there you go Mathius, you can report the photographer for uploading a fake and falsified image. An image that would have got through Airliners rigorous screening and uploading process. Mathius, will you be claiming that Airliners are now part of the conspiracy? The great conspiracy to keep you from getting to the 'truth'?

Good point - go for it Matty - let us know the results!

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Mathius,
Stop try to hand wave and fudge the issue. You have proved that you are lost in the aviation world. This is the basics surrounding your theory and belief in chemtrails. You are the one claiming that there should be 'no gap' and that the trails are coming from the 'rear wing set'. You are the one that came on to this forum and made these claims. With that level of aviation knowledge is it any wonder that people are not taking you seriously? If you had that knowledge then you would have been able to answer the question that I posed to you back in early March? If you had the knowledge then you would have been able to answer it instantly back in March. Mathius, you came swaggering onto ATS and presented yourself as the 'chemtrail guru' so explain what is happening in the following video? Why is there three trails?



TJ

Mathius,

www.thelivingmoon.com...

Do a search on Google for the Google book title

'Boeing 777: Jetliner for a New Century'

Scroll down or do a search for water ballast.

We know it is hard for you? We feel for you, Mathius. All those flight test engineers conducting tests in order to hide the chemtrail aircraft theory.

In the following video Scott Peterson, Boeing Test and Evalutation engineer gives the low down on those 'chemical tanks'

www.boeing.com...

www.iloveplanes.com...

Airbus A380. Do a search through the images to see the tanks on board for flight testing.

www.airliners.net...

Look they even let aircraft enthusiast and families onboard to take images of the 'chemical tanks'. It must be part of the NWO conditioning?

airfixtributeforum.myfastforum.org...

Boeing 747

www.wired.com...

TJ

reply to post by Tecumte

How about we start in a logical place with some simple footage and try and get a handle on just EXACTLY what it is that people are seeing with their own eyes that makes them think that some trails coming from some planes may be substantially different than trails coming from other planes. Would that be a fair, rational, and reasonable place to start. No Nibiru, no aliens. etc. sound good?

I watched your linked video on a different thread. I can tell you that this very day, I observed persistent contrails, dissipating contrails and planes that left none at all, at the same time! This, in the presence of a bank of cirrus clouds moving from West to East. We had a pretty good front move in overnight, dropping ground temps from the 40's to the low 20's.

The skies were absolutely clear at dawn and remained that way until about 12:00 p.m. No contrails visible during this period either.

Between 1:00 and 4:00 p.m. high cirrus moved in, covering almost everything from the zenith (overhead) to the southern horizon. Even so, there were planes below the cloud level that left visible contrails. Some persisted almost 180 degrees, from West to East; others dissipated after only about 10 degrees (the width of your thumb at arms length). To the North, planes moving N to S left no contrails at all. Some of those on an easterly track also ceased producing contrails after having left rapidly dissipating ones, but not all.

During all of this time, I observed that some contrails would persist for a portion of the flight path, disappear in another and start again, but dissipate. Of course some of the flight paths crossed.

None of these were "chemtrails."

The above description is one reason why a third-party video, or an eyewitness description, does little to serve as the basis for discussion. The video creator, you and I are all able to present our own subjective interpretation of what we are seeing. Eyewitness testimony is among the worst "evidence" there is. This is a documented fact, and has been explored in the context of criminal acts, auto accidents, Roswell, and Area 51 by several independent scientists. .

So, let's set aside observations for now.

Let's go back to the lat time you saw "chemtrails."

How many did you see? Over what time period? How many contrails did you see? What was the difference?
(See how this works?)
What were the weather conditions, including clouds? Were conditions the same or different from previous and subsequent days? Did conditions change during your observation period? Was there anything unusual about the weather the previous day, that day, or the next?

Can you describe the planes? Did anything about them lead you to believe they were commercial? Military? Private? Foreign or American?

See, the first thing you have to do is to take a reported sighting of "chemtrails" and document what was actually occurring.
Then you have to apply the facts to a theory or proposition. Then you try to "falsify" the theory. If you can disprove any one element of the theory, you go back and start over

If you can't disprove the elements, then you try to replicate the "test."

It is not easy, but it is the only way to accurately present and test a proposition such as "chemtrails."

jw.

reply to post by jdub297

There can even be a plane that leaves an intermittent trail -- That is, a plane could be leaving a trail, then stop leaving a trail for a few seconds, then start leaving a trail again.

This happen when the plane flies through areas of the sky with different conditions -- some areas with condition's that favor trail production, and area that conditions do not favor trail production.

So even a single plane could leave different kinds of trails during the span of a minute.

reply to post by jdub297


In your entire reply you skipped right over the one simple question that I asked.

What makes you assume that the difference in the two trails occurring at the same time on the video was simply a difference in altitudes or atmospheric conditions rather than perhaps a difference in the actual chemical makeup of the exhaust?

Would you at least be straightforward as to your reason and tell me?

Originally posted by Tecumte
reply to post by jdub297

 

In your entire reply you skipped right over the one simple question that I asked.

What makes you assume that the difference in the two trails occurring at the same time on the video was simply a difference in altitudes or atmospheric conditions rather than perhaps a difference in the actual chemical makeup of the exhaust?

Would you at least be straightforward as to your reason and tell me?

I could be wrong, but I didn't see anyplace in jdub's post where he mentioned anything about assuming that the two planes were at different altitudes.

However, to answer the question: "How can two planes in the video make different trails", one answer would be that the planes in question could be flying at different altitudes.

Of course, considering that conditions favorable for contrail persistence can be highly localized, it is possible (although less probable) for two planes visible in the sky at the same time flying at the same altitude to have different trails. However, the answer is more likely that they are at different altitudes -- especially considering that the two planes in that video would probably have been too close to each other if they were at the same altitude.

Originally posted by tommyjo
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
Mathius, you came swaggering onto ATS and presented yourself as the 'chemtrail guru' so explain what is happening in the following video? Why is there three trails?

I got blocked from that channel for daring to suggest an answer......I wonder if Matty would??

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by Tecumte
reply to post by jdub297

 

In your entire reply you skipped right over the one simple question that I asked.

What makes you assume that the difference in the two trails occurring at the same time on the video was simply a difference in altitudes or atmospheric conditions rather than perhaps a difference in the actual chemical makeup of the exhaust?

Would you at least be straightforward as to your reason and tell me?

I could be wrong, but I didn't see anyplace in jdub's post where he mentioned anything about assuming that the two planes were at different altitudes.

However, to answer the question: "How can two planes in the video make different trails", one answer would be that the planes in question could be flying at different altitudes.

Of course, considering that conditions favorable for contrail persistence can be highly localized, it is possible (although less probable) for two planes visible in the sky at the same time flying at the same altitude to have different trails. However, the answer is more likely that they are at different altitudes -- especially considering that the two planes in that video would probably have been too close to each other if they were at the same altitude.

edit on 3/27/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Then obviously too, there is also the possibility that they are producing exhaust of an entirely different chemical makeup.

I'm starting to get the feeling, as many times as I've mentioned this, that this possibility is being intentionally sidestepped.

Why?

reply to post by Tecumte


NO!

.... there is also the possibility that they are producing exhaust of an entirely different chemical makeup.

We have covered, in GREAT depth already, the impossibility of *anything* foreign being in the fuel. NOT that would be "visible" (other than the already-included hydrocarbons that are ALREADY the reason for contrails!).


Why is this so difficult to grasp??

Here...I will try a rather blunt analogy:

The atmosphere is NOT homogeneous. This is a reality. It is understood, yes?

OK....now, trying to use an example on Earth.....in two dimensions, so this is not perfect. After a rainstorm, and the resulting different puddles of water o the pavement. YOU are driving down the highway, and encountering these puddles. Making BIG splashes, small splashes or NO splashes, depending.

That is a gross over-simplification of our atmosphere. It is constantly different, in terms of the amounts of humidity, and even temperature (but, my "puddles" represent areas of high humidity, in this example).

It is really so easy to understand, once you take time to become educated on the topic of meteorology, for starters....

Originally posted by Tecumte
Then obviously too, there is also the possibility that they are producing exhaust of an entirely different chemical makeup.

Ther is a standard for eth content and makeup of Jet A1 fuel - look around the net & you can find it. you can go buy a gallon of it from Mobil or Shell or Exxon or BP or whoeever & have it analysed agains the standard.

I'm starting to get the feeling, as many times as I've mentioned this, that this possibility is being intentionally sidestepped.

Why?

Probably because you haven't been around long enough to see the previous debates about it.

Originally posted by Tecumte
Then obviously too, there is also the possibility that they are producing exhaust of an entirely different chemical makeup.

I'm starting to get the feeling, as many times as I've mentioned this, that this possibility is being intentionally sidestepped.

Why?

Well, sure. I suppose it is possible -- although this would pre-suppose that chemicals are intentionally being sprayed, which is the whole question here. Regular contrails are mostly water vapor.

It is a well-understood fact that planes in different parts of the sky and at different altitudes could produce different trails. There is also no question that planes fly at different altitudes. I would say the ones in that video that "appeared" almost side-by-side when viewed in 2-D were most likely at different altitudes because of how close they "appeared" to be in 2-D. Therefore, it seems the most likely answer would be that the planes were at different altitudes.

Consider this thought experiment for example:

Say the weather report for the day was calling for rain. Right before you walk into a windowless building, you note that it hasn't rained yet and the streets are dry, but the sky is dark and looks to be threatening rain. You come out of the windowless building an hour later to find that the streets are all wet (although it isn't raining at the moment, but the sky is still dark and overcast).

If a person who came out of the building with you asked why the streets are wet, would you answer:

(1) It probably rained.
or
(2) A fire truck probably came by and sprayed water everywhere.

Which would you consider to be the likely explanation?

reply to post by Tecumte

What makes you assume that the difference in the two trails occurring at the same time on the video was simply a difference in altitudes or atmospheric conditions rather than perhaps a difference in the actual chemical makeup of the exhaust?

See, this is why I said we should leave perceptions out of the equation! I cannot say from a video upload whether an image is what you believe it to be or what the creator purports it to be.

Nor have I ever made any assumptions about the presentation you asked me to watch. Do you believe everything you see and are told that fits into your worldview without thinking, or do you just make it up as you go along?

Quote me where you claim I made this "assumption," or retract this.

Would you at least be straightforward as to your reason and tell me?

Why would you ask that? I have NEVER assumed anything about the video, the airplanes or your motivation.

Did you make this "assumption" up out of thin air (pun intended)? Or is that an intentional misrepresentation?

Unless you can explain why you would misrepresent me or my posts, then I must conclude that your feigned sincerity is as real as a "chemtrail."

jw

".... there is also the possibility that they are producing exhaust of an entirely different chemical makeup".-TC

"NO!
We have covered, in GREAT depth already, the impossibility of *anything* foreign being in the fuel. NOT that would be "visible" (other than the already-included hydrocarbons that are ALREADY the reason for contrails!)".--Weedwhacker

Oh c'mon now lol, it is not 'impossible' at all, I can't believe you would even say something outrageous like that, of course it's possible and maybe even likely, let's be honest here you really have no way of knowing without doing actual chemical analysis what is coming out of ANY given plane. How can this not be self-evident.

reply to post by jdub297


Easy enough to clear up, do you believe the difference in the planes exhaust with the quickly dispating trail shown in the video at the same time the 2nd plane is producing the heavy thick looking plume is due to altitude, a variation in the atmospheric conditions between the two planes, some combination or something else. Perhaps I wasn't clear on what you were asserting and you can set the record staright. Thanks.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Tecumte

 

NO!

.... there is also the possibility that they are producing exhaust of an entirely different chemical makeup.

We have covered, in GREAT depth already, the impossibility of *anything* foreign being in the fuel. NOT that would be "visible" (other than the already-included hydrocarbons that are ALREADY the reason for contrails!).


Why is this so difficult to grasp??

Here...I will try a rather blunt analogy:

The atmosphere is NOT homogeneous. This is a reality. It is understood, yes?

OK....now, trying to use an example on Earth.....in two dimensions, so this is not perfect. After a rainstorm, and the resulting different puddles of water o the pavement. YOU are driving down the highway, and encountering these puddles. Making BIG splashes, small splashes or NO splashes, depending.

That is a gross over-simplification of our atmosphere. It is constantly different, in terms of the amounts of humidity, and even temperature (but, my "puddles" represent areas of high humidity, in this example).

It is really so easy to understand, once you take time to become educated on the topic of meteorology, for starters....

You have not covered anything about the topic of chemtrails or it's sub topics that in any way shape or form debunks, disproves or validly explains what we are seeing and the REAL impact they are having on our evironment and to our health. You absolutely have NOT proven any aspect to be impossible.

You may not like to venture outside your safety bubble and insist that they are persistent contrails till you're blue in the face. But that does not mean that what you are saying is true and somethng else is impossible. Your only proof seems to be " because I said so...".

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

You have not covered anything about the topic of chemtrails or it's sub topics that in any way shape or form debunks, disproves or validly explains what we are seeing and the REAL impact they are having on our evironment and to our health.

What real impact on our environment and health?

Contrails cause some small global warming. Piollution in general is bad for health.

Is that your case??

You absolutely have NOT proven any aspect to be impossible.

And you absolutely have not shown that anything is actually happening.

Why should someone have to show that something is impossible?

You may not like to venture outside your safety bubble and insist that they are persistent contrails till you're blue in the face. But that does not mean that what you are saying is true and somethng else is impossible.

What is it you think someone has said is impossible?

Your only proof seems to be " because I said so...".

Really? I'm pretty sure you are confusing someone with a chemtrail hoaxer, because that is the only level of evidence that exists that chemtrails exist - you and your conspirators say so.

reply to post by Tecumte

let's be honest here you really have no way of knowing without doing actual chemical analysis what is coming out of ANY given plane. How can this not be self-evident.

This applies equally to your "possibility," no?

What good does it do to jump to any conclusion?

Why didn't the makers of the video SAY what he relative altitudes were, if it is such an important part of the video? It is relatively easy to calculate.

The obvious answer is that these elementary facts did not serve the purpose of the video! Don't you think that if they could prove that they were at the same altitude they would have? Well, they could have, and they chose not to.

deny ignorance
jw