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.

 

If You Think These Are Just “Contrails” Think Again – Here’s What They Really Are

page: 5
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Thanks for the compliment on my minion.

The main thing I have been trying to get across in this thread is that yes, cloud seeding is real, and it has nothing to do with this forum. It's done locally, it's not secret, it's not geo-engineering (since it's small scale localized) and it cannot be seen from the ground. When it's brought up here, it only confuses the subject as there are plenty of documents explaining it and the process it uses.

Chemtrails and geo-engineering are different animals. And while I believe chemtrails are merely misidentified contrails, geo-engineering is a subject that needs to be looked at on a continual basis and discussed in hopes that nobody tries to screw up this planet anymore than we already have. I have not seen anything that points to active projects going on.

And the USAF document has been discussed here many times. There is another document bu the USAF with chemtrails in the title. Although it was a play on two words, (contrails and chemicals in a lab environment) many folks jumped on it purely for the title.




posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: mrthumpy
I wonder how I managed to stumble on the rest of the paper then? Oh that's right, I started looking into what it was all about and why it was written.

I stumbled on that paper in the context of a weather modification article. The article failed to mention that the said article was just a chapter. I saved the chapter for offline reading, and went to work. Unlike some of us here I have a job, and weather modification is not my primary field of interest.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Well I can most certainly agree with that!



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne




...is a standard procedure in documents so to explain that if the document has a typo, a miscalculation, an error or something, the blame falls on the authors of the document, and not on the whole USAF nor the Government.


And they also say that when it is a fictional scenario that doesn't have anything to do with the Air Force or the US Government.

But you do understand the reason for the disclaimer and why they put it where they did...correct?

It's there because of things such as this where someone who doesn't understand the fact that this was a fictional paper tries to pass it off as something the US gov't., or the Air Force is doing in the real world...which it isn't, but feel free to provide any proof you can that shows this is anything other than a fictional paper.

And just so you know it hasn't happened yet.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude




There is another document bu the USAF with chemtrails in the title.


Ah yes, this one...

www.metabunk.org...

I love it when these are tossed out there as evidence.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
feel free to provide any proof you can that shows this is anything other than a fictional paper.

I cannot prove a negative. You are the one that claims it is a fiction, based on a disclaimer which says that the paper may contain simulations.

In which case may I return the favour and ask you for the proof that the entire paper is fictional?

Remember that we are talking about this entire paper:

csat.au.af.mil...



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

yup, that's the one.
Thanks for the link.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne




In which case may I return the favour and ask you for the proof that the entire paper is fictional?


Well I see where this is going, but as I said please provide any evidence that this is something more than what the disclaimer says?

Do you really think this is the first time most of us have seen this type of thread that tries to make something more of this paper than what it really is?

Do yourself a favor and put some research into the paper and see what you come up with as that is why myself and the others are telling you what the paper really is...because we have done the research and have seen the answers you seemingly want to disbelieve.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne




Remember that we are talking about this entire paper:


Yes, and the disclaimer is for the whole paper not just a chapter.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
Do yourself a favor and put some research into the paper and see what you come up with as that is why myself and the others are telling you what the paper really is...because we have done the research and have seen the answers you seemingly want to disbelieve.

And is this the current topic of the thread? I provided link to this paper as a possible support, nothing more. I also provided link to a scientific article explaining how cloud seeding is achieved, but which you seem to have ignored.

There are plenty of proofs that work in weather control has begun. There is no point in denying it. If you do your research you might find a couple of surprises.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
Yes, and the disclaimer is for the whole paper not just a chapter.

A disclaimer which basically states that the article may contain simulations.

What else do you think "fictive scenarios", especially in the context of "planning something ahead", means?



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: mrthumpy
I wonder how I managed to stumble on the rest of the paper then? Oh that's right, I started looking into what it was all about and why it was written.

I stumbled on that paper in the context of a weather modification article. The article failed to mention that the said article was just a chapter. I saved the chapter for offline reading, and went to work. Unlike some of us here I have a job, and weather modification is not my primary field of interest.


The article failed to mention it and you failed to investigate it



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne




And is this the current topic of the thread? I provided link to this paper as a possible support, nothing more.


And yet the paper itself tells you it isn't for real scenarios and is fictional, yet you know more than the people who this paper is supposed to represent...how is that?

And back to the topic of the thread...the link in the OP is a fallacy and they are contrails, care to show me anything that backs the claim chemtrails exist?



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne




I also provided link to a scientific article explaining how cloud seeding is achieved, but which you seem to have ignored.



Ignored something that is well known, and just so you know it has nothing to do with chemtrails nor is it being used for something nefarious.

And just so you know...Cloud seeding has been done in the public eye for over 60 years, but don't tell anyone its a secret.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Right think I get it now, so how is it people think they can discern the difference between a "chemtrail" and a contrail?

Seems pretty much impossible?



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Dabrazzo




Right think I get it now, so how is it people think they can discern the difference between a "chemtrail" and a contrail?


That would be a question to ask those who push the chemtrail hoax.

You see chemtrails are supposed to exist yet not one person has ever gone up and tried to test one that was being sprayed, yet they have done it with contrails...which should be proof enough that they don't exist, because if they actually go up and test for them then find the truth the gullible money train ends.

And they don't want that now do they?



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Yeah man seems pretty wacky, even a decent balloon with a fairly rudimentary sampler/capture device would suffice, not going to cost much. Odd.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dabrazzo
a reply to: network dude

Right think I get it now, so how is it people think they can discern the difference between a "chemtrail" and a contrail?

Seems pretty much impossible?



Thanks. And to answer your question, no clue. It's my opinion that the folks who are all mad about chemtrails just don't understand contrails, clouds, and weather. It's not a crime or anything, but the only way to keep the belief is to actively ignore proven science. (that is a crime against common sense IMHO)

Like you say though, a direct sample would answer any and all questions. Which is why those making a living off of chemtrails are against that.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Dabrazzo




Yeah man seems pretty wacky, even a decent balloon with a fairly rudimentary sampler/capture device would suffice, not going to cost much. Odd.


Not if you want to fool people into sending you money by telling them something exists without actually having proof.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dabrazzo
a reply to: network dude

Right think I get it now, so how is it people think they can discern the difference between a "chemtrail" and a contrail?

Seems pretty much impossible?



Basically, if it looks and behaves like a persistent contrail, it gets called a chemtrail. That, really is it.

The irony being that if chemtrails really were being sprayed, there is no reason at all to suppose they would even be visible from the ground, let alone look and behave like persistent contrails.




top topics



 
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join