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.

 

What sources would you believe for contrail science?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Why I debunk the chemtrail myth - remains as true now as when I wrote it.




posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

I've seen plenty of comments online from people saying that they wish they could shoot down aircraft for spraying chemtrails.

I've personally heard guys talking about breaking into an airport and trying to sabotage one particular domestic airline's aircraft, they're convinced this company is one of the airlines "complicit" in the global spraying operation. I know these people are full of s**t but I always keep an eye on them anyway and I'll be informing the police if I ever suspect that they will actually try anything, but the chances of that are tiny.

The whole chemtrail mythos is part of a multi-layered fringe belief system that overlaps with other 'new age' type paradigms. From my experience the majority of people who invest their lives in a lot of this stuff are typically unstable individuals, to varying degrees. Some of these people are nice and peaceful, some are vulnerable and distressed, and some are f**king nut-cases who, if they could, would actually shoot down a jet they thought was 'spraying'.




edit on 21-7-2014 by seabhac-rua because: speling corektions



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
Why I debunk the chemtrail myth - remains as true now as when I wrote it.

Interesting to see one of the comments on that thread:

They turn around out by me like a farmer plowing a field and lay line after line going from East to West and back. They routinely make a patch work over a city to the southwest of me. They did it again today. It's like they are spraying a cloud with the sole intention of blanketing that city. I see them turn off their spray, turn around and turn it back on to make a new line. They make lines that are equally distanced apart. I bought a video camera to film this happening several months ago. I plan to get my butt out there one day and film it.


"One day". Here we are almost three years later and still not a single person anywhere in the world has managed to film such a thing. It's almost like they're making it up!



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Well this I can believe ......


Plane Exhaust Kills More People Than Plane Crashes

There's a new fear of flying: You're more likely to die from exposure to toxic pollutants in plane exhaust than in a plane crash, a new study suggests.

In recent years, airplane crashes have killed about a thousand people annually, whereas plane emissions kill about ten thousand people each year, researchers say.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: MagicWand67
And how many people does car exhaust kill? Why not complain about that instead? I'd be far more worried about the pollutants being emitted right at ground level than those six miles above your head.

Pollution has nothing to do with chemtrails so stop bringing it up in the chemtrail forum. Nobody is denying that aircraft cause pollution. What they are denying is that chemicals are being deliberately sprayed from them. You lost that argument so stop trying to shift the goalposts.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 03:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

Typical debunker strategy. Change the topic to something else. This thread isn't about car-trails. But I am well aware that car exhaust causes over 3 million deaths per year. More than 2 million of those are in Asia. How do you know if I do or don't complain about that? I don't complain about that here because that would be off topic.

The last time I looked this was the GEOENGINEERING forum. Just because your agenda is chemtrails it doesn't mean that I have to follow you down some dark alley so you and your gang can jump on me. I'm here to discuss Geoengineering, aircraft emissions, contrails and their effects on climate change.

You can set your goal posts anywhere you want. I'm not playing your stupid game. This isn't about scoring points on some imaginary field. Sorry if that affects your checkbook and status within your tribe. But I don't really care for you that much anyway. Aviation pollution has a great deal to do with climate change, ozone depletion and geoengineering.

I didn't lose any argument. You invented that argument and I never took part in it.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: MagicWand67

Actually you're the one changing the topic.

Toxic emissions from jet engines, as bad as they are, have nothing to do with the chemtrail thesis.

Let me remind you that chemtrail conspiracy theorists only recently(the last 5/6 yrs) adopted the 'geo-engineering' angle. Before that it was vaccines, nano-tech, you name it (even blood for feck sake!), that was supposedly being sprayed. Geoengineering is a real science, and this has lent some credibility to the theorists claims, just. But we still see these other ludicrous claims being made, alongside the ubiquitous HAARP, or how about planet Niburu?

That jet engine exhaust has a negative effect on human health has zero to do with the chemtrail pantheon, but throw it in there, it's a National Geographic article, when it suits chemtrail believers they will quote from the mainstream, if NG published an article that contradicts your beliefs then, of course, it's all lies, designed to "condition the masses".

Talk about moving the goalposts? That's all chemtrail believers do. How many times have we heard 'Agent Orange' come up in these discussions? When it's pointed out that AO was a defoliant sprayed at low altitude the chemmies drop that and move on to 'Chaff', then they move onto 'cloud seeding', and on and on, blah blah blah.

By the way, alluding to somebody being paid to come on here and 'debunk' chemtrails is such a lame argument that it instantly demotes you to "chemtard" in my books.

Have a nice day.


edit on 22-7-2014 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 04:10 AM
link   
a reply to: MagicWand67
If you want to talk about contrails then talk about contrails. Stop trying to derail it with talk of a few parts per trillion of aluminium, which then get diluted ten-thousandfold in a contrail.

Contrails have an effect on cloud cover, of course, and that is an interesting topic. But the effect is purely coincidental because as of 2014 "geoengineering" is nothing other than a few proposals that in all likelihood will neve me get off the ground because the opposition would be enormous. And I would count myself among that opposition.

But that has nothing whatsoever to do with chemtrails and it needs to be kept SEPARATE from the lunatics who claim that contrails don't even exist and that the visible trails we see are in fact chemicals being sprayed deliberately.

Why can't you see that these are two totally separate issues? Associating yourself with chemtrails is a sure way to lose all credibility. Contrails exist. Chemtrails don't. You just seem to be scattering out any kind of accusations vaguely related to anything that comes out of the back of a plane. If you have a point, make it and stick to it.

edit on 22-7-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48




Stop trying to derail it with talk of a few parts per trillion of aluminium, which then get diluted ten-thousandfold in a contrail.


Please, show me the post in this thread you're referring to.

You can't even keep track of which thread you're in weedwhacker. You got too much on your plate again.

Isn't that what got you demoted last time when ATS made this new forum?

I am preparing a very thorough response to your post IN THE OTHER THREAD.

Now as far as Geoengineering goes have a look at this.

A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal
Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance
Efforts


Federal agencies identified 52 research activities, totaling about $100.9
million, relevant to geoengineering during fiscal years 2009 and 2010. GAO’s
analysis found that 43 activities, totaling about $99 million, focused either on
mitigation strategies or basic science. Most of the research focused on
mitigation efforts, such as geological sequestration of CO2, which were
identified as relevant to CDR approaches but not designed to address them
directly. GAO found that nine activities, totaling about $1.9 million, directly
investigated SRM or less conventional CDR approaches.






Have fun here. I'll make my own thread soon to post the rest of the documentation I have.

For now, I'm going back to writing my response to you in the other thread.

This thread is whacked. I'll be back.


edit on 22-7-2014 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: MagicWand67

Well sorry about that. When you spread your gibberish through so many threads it can be hard to keep track.

THIS thread is about what sources you would trust about contrail science.

On which note: in this post you accused Contrailscience.com of being a "shill site". When I showed you were talking rubbish you dropped it and never mentioned it again.

Still claiming that there was a mystery missile launch off California in 2010? Or do you accept that it was a plane and Mick West was right, and that he is in no way a "shill"?


Who is "weedwhacker", by the way, and what do you mean by "being demoted"? I do hope you are not accusing me of being a sock puppet without some kind of proof. I have never been a member of this site under any other name. I joined in February this year for the first time. I'm sure a mod will be able to confirm that for you.
edit on 22-7-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48



This thread is about what sources you would trust about contrail science. Who is derailing what exactly?


There is a direct connection with contrails and Geoengineering by means of jet exhaust.

I feel quite comfortable with the relevancy of Geoengineering to contrail science.

A large part of the emerging contrail science has to do with the effects they have on climate change.



In this post you accused Contrailscience.com of being a "shill site". When I showed you were talking rubbish you dropped it and never mentioned it again.


You showed I was talking rubbish? Ha ! Please point that out again. I must have missed it.




Still claiming that there was a mystery missile launch of California in 2010? Or do you accept that it was a plane and Mick West was right?



No I don't accept that he was right. He's full of crap.



Who is "weedwhacker", by the way? I do hope you are not accusing me of being a sock puppet without some kind of proof. I have never been a member of this site under any other name. I joined in February this year for the first time.



Well if that is the case then I apologize for the accusation. The resemblance is uncanny. I suppose I could be wrong about that though. A lot of the debunkers do kind of all sound the same when posting their insults and hogwash.


edit on 22-7-2014 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

There used to be a member on here who went by the name of "Weedwhacker"

He wasn't a believer in chemtrails either.

I don't know where he went.

It's gas the way Wand accuses you of being Weedwhacker, like you're really some kind of obsessive chemtrail debunker who keeps getting banned. The reality is that it's the chemtrail believers who keep getting banned, usually for abusive posts, and then coming back with new aliases, I've seen this pattern a lot before. Mr Wand is doing what psychologists call 'projecting'.

For the chemtrail believer "paid gov shills" are an essential component in their delusion, how else can they explain people like you or me? That ordinary people who are capable of rational thought are not in accordance with them defies their stunted intellects, and it makes them angry too.

Chemtrails are the modern day version of witches, and the chemtrail believer is the god-fearing-village-idiot who wants to burn some sense into.....well somebody!



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: seabhac-rua

WeedWhacker was never banned. He changed his name to Proudbird and then got banned.

BTW, I'm not a "chemtrail" believer.
edit on 22-7-2014 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: MagicWand67

You showed I was talking rubbish? Ha ! Please point that out again. I must have missed it.


Where I showed that you posted an out-of-date CBS news story as "proof" that the plane explanation was wrong? It's right here. You posted a link to a story written before the real cause was identified. There was never any missile. Full stop.
edit on 22-7-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: MagicWand67



There is a direct connection with contrails and Geoengineering by means of jet exhaust.


Yeah sure, just like there's a direct connection between a fart and geo-engineering.

Jet exhaust is a by-product of air travel. Just like that lovely odour is a by product of your last meal.

What you're doing is called "reaching", and it's what chemtrail believers have been doing for the last few years, trying to tie their bolloxology to an actual field of science. But you're not fooling anybody.


edit on 22-7-2014 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

I didn't say "proof". I said "the truth" and that is my opinion.

The story was not out of date. It was just one example of an expert opinion.

The general consensus among experts who saw it was that it was a missile launch.




There was never any missile


Where's your proof? Or is this just your opinion?



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: seabhac-rua




But you're not fooling anybody.


You're not fooling anybody.

Unless you provide a source anything you say is just your opinion.

Opinions are like aholes. Everybody has one and most of them stink.

Have a nice day. I have other business to attend to now.


edit on 22-7-2014 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: seabhac-rua

WeedWhacker was never banned. He changed his name to Proudbird and then got banned.

BTW, I'm not a "chemtrail" believer.


Yeah -- weedwhacher and proudbird had a distinctive writing, language, and posting style (I knew almost immediately that ProudBird was Weedwhacker just by the similarities of style).

Rob48 does not have that same style. Plus, it seemed to me that weedwhacker sounded American. Rob48 is a Brit.


edit on 7/22/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: Rob48



This thread is about what sources you would trust about contrail science. Who is derailing what exactly?


There is a direct connection with contrails and Geoengineering by means of jet exhaust.

I feel quite comfortable with the relevancy of Geoengineering to contrail science.

A large part of the emerging contrail science has to do with the effects they have on climate change.


Are you saying that there is a concerted effort to intentionally change the climate through jet exhaust?

While I agree that jet exhaust contributes (some) to air pollution/greenhouse gasses (although automobiles and industrial emissions contribute far more), AND I agree that greenhouse gasses can affect the climate, I don't really think you can call that "geoengineering", unless there is some orchestrated intent to WANT to affect climate change behind it.

I mean, that would be like saying that driving cars is "geoengineering".

If you are saying that planes are being flown in order to intentionally spew chemicals in an orchestrated and covert attempt to geoengineer the climate, then I really haven't seen any evidence from you corroborating that assertion. All your evidence seems to just be pointing out that jets can add to air pollution -- but we already know that.


edit on 7/22/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: MagicWand67

You're using another ploy now, it's called argument from ignorance.

Who am I trying to fool? You?

You make the claim, you provide the source, that's the way it works in the real world.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join