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.

 

A "no spray day"?

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   


I took this picture this morning. It's hard to see, but there were actually 5 planes all making very short contrails.
So, either one of two things was at play here.

1. the global cabal that engineers the climate decided that for at least this morning, in Eastern NC, no spraying would be needed

OR....

2. the upper atmosphere where planes fly was not conducive for persistent contrail formation.

Either way, how do the chemtrail pushers explain this away?
edit on 15-12-2014 by network dude because: went off while I was cleaning it.




posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I would go with option number 2.

But hear my warning: not everyone follows reason - so be prepared to meet people who will choose option 1.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude




Either way, how do the chemtrail pushers explain this away?

No chemtrail plane flights in that area at that time




2. the upper atmosphere where planes fly was not conducive for persistent contrail formation.

Number 2 sounds about right.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Chemtrails have been suspended in the interest of trying to create a white Christmas thus growing the mass hysteria caused by festive marketing in turn boosting the economy and the pockets of the elite.

Deny ignorance.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263

Are the pilots getting paid still? If not, then how will their families have a happy Christmas?

What about all the ground crew that loads the chemicals, and lets not forget the chemical salesmen. Good Lord! so many sad faces this Christmas.

This makes me a sad panda.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
They've stopped so the withdrawal symptoms will kill us all just around Christmas, while they laugh and eat baby's in their underground bases.

On a more serious note..

Why are you so heavily against the idea of chemtrails?

I mean i get it.. the way it has been proposed countless times by either morons or people trying to make money makes it seem like the whole concept is pretty nonsensical.

But geo-engineering is real, and it includes spraying chemicals using planes.
We just don't know if and to what extent it is being used.. and we can't.

It's like internet hypochondria.. Most people claiming to have seen it happen.. didn't actually see it happen, but it could still be true if even for a little.

I don't know, and you don't know either.

Try to keep an open mind is all i'm saying.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Skaffa

I am actually against chemtrails as the whole idea is ignorant, and I feel that them being lumped in with geo-engineering is a bad thing. It constantly brings adversarial discussions to a real topic that should be discussed. I guess I really want folks to understand the difference. If you read a few threads (you don't even need to scroll to far down) you will notice that people still don't understand the difference between cloud seeding and contrails, so it takes baby steps to get up to geo-engineering.

I don't argue for or against Bigfoot as I don't really know the truth there. I'd like him to be a reality, but all my logical thought tells me it's nothing but a story. But chemtrails are something that can be investigated, understood, and debunked with very basic science. So I feel quite confident in discussing them.

I really wish I got a dollar for every time I was asked that.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkaffaWhy are you so heavily against the idea of chemtrails?


Well I'm against them because illicitly spraying bad stuff in the atmosphere would be...er....bad!

Pollution is already bad enough - we don't need more carp!


But geo-engineering is real, and it includes spraying chemicals using planes.


That's news to me - can you link to some evidence please??



We just don't know if and to what extent it is being used..


But you just said that we do know that it is being done - you are confusing me - do we know or don't we??


and we can't.


Why not? we can test for all sorts of stuff.


edit on 15-12-2014 by Aloysius the Gaul because: quote tag

edit on 15-12-2014 by Aloysius the Gaul because: spelling



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   

them being lumped in with geo-engineering is a bad thing.


But it IS geo-engineering, it is manipulating the environment.
That's what it means, not just cloud seeding.

''Geoengineering is the application of geosciences, where mechanics, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and geology are used to understand and shape our interaction with the earth.'' - Wiki

You also cannot debunk it since you can't prove a negative. That might be why Bigfoot is still talked about but still.

And what science?
Of course i know what contrails are, and that 99.99999999 percent of the time those lines in the sky most definitely do not include added chemicals. Heck, maybe it's a 100 percent and they don't even mix 'em with contrails and just dump it all down below.

I don't take it all too seriously either, but i won't write it off completely just yet simply because crazier things have happened, and the military has tested it before.




Well I'm against them because illicitly spraying bad stuff in the atmosphere would be...er....bad!


I wasn't talking about contrails themselves. I said ''the idea'', as in the notion that they are real.



That's news to me - can you link to some evidence please??


Ever heard of Agent Orange?

Also this.



But you just said that we do know that it is being done - you are confusing me - do we know or don't we??


We don't know if it is being done THIS moment in time, and to what extent.



Why not? we can test for all sorts of stuff.


Only declassified documents count as proof in these kinds of scenarios.

Stop being a wise-ass please.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Skaffa




Ever heard of Agent Orange?


Yes, and it has nothing to do with chemtrails or geoengineering...sorry.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Skaffa




Also this.


Here you go...

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Skaffa

them being lumped in with geo-engineering is a bad thing.


You also cannot debunk it since you can't prove a negative. That might be why Bigfoot is still talked about but still.


we can certainly debunk the "evidence" that is provided - contrails can't persist, contrails can't expand, contrails never used to do this, this water sample with aluminium proves chemtrails, etc.






Well I'm against them because illicitly spraying bad stuff in the atmosphere would be...er....bad!


I wasn't talking about contrails themselves. I said ''the idea'', as in the notion that they are real.


I am not against the notion that something like chemtrails might exist.

I am against looking are rubbish evidence and concluding that the DO exist.




That's news to me - can you link to some evidence please??


Ever heard of Agent Orange?

defoliant - nothing to do with geoengineering


Also this.


they weren't radioactive, and they were testing to see how far chemical weapons might spread - again nothing to do with geoengineering.

See this is the sort of carp evidence people put up - it is nonsense to say this proves geoengineering is happening.

Sure stuff gets sprayed from planes - it's not secret!!




But you just said that we do know that it is being done - you are confusing me - do we know or don't we??


We don't know if it is being done THIS moment in time, and to what extent.


We have no evidence that it is being done at this time at all - so why believe that it might be, if all the support is rubbish evidence from decades ago that have nothing to do with geoengineering?




Why not? we can test for all sorts of stuff.


Only declassified documents count as proof in these kinds of scenarios.


Taking samples of trails that contained stuff that should not be there would be very good evidence that "it" is happening.


Stop being a wise-ass please.


Oh nice - you present "evidence" that has nothing to do with geoenginering and you say that I am the wise-ass??

Stop being such a sheep and use eth brain god gave you!
edit on 15-12-2014 by Aloysius the Gaul because: quote tags



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Skaffa
In my opinion, chemtrails are what uninformed folks point to in the sky and claim to know it's something evil, or not normal. The people who think that every contrail that persists must be a chemtrail because........some idiot told them it was that way.

Geo-engineering on the other hand, is a multitude of ideas. Many include getting tiny particles into the upper atmosphere. And I don't believe we should be putting anything into the sky for any reason. I am fully aware that contrails are a byproduct of powered flight and while I prefer beautiful cloudless blue skies, I understand that contrails will be there at times.

But we need to stay vigilant on geo-engineering to be sure someone doesn't start doing things without the public's knowledge and potentially causing horrible damage.

Just as you have confused cloud seeding in with the topic, those kinds of fallacies will only convolute this topic more than it is already. Cloud seeding in localized weather manipulation. Geo-engineering is GLOBAL. The two don't belong in the same arena for very specific reasons. Cloud seeding is accepted and practiced in the open. So when it's lumped in as proof of chemtrails, well, lets just say it's not.
And in my opinion, it takes away any credibility discussion about Geo-engineering may have.

If you feel differently, please explain why.
edit on 15-12-2014 by network dude because: bad spelr



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I was simply trying to say that we should not completely throw chemtrails out of the window since similar things have happened before. I'm not trying to prove anything, I don't even believe it is happening.



has nothing to do with chemtrails or geoengineering...sorry.


Agent Orange has nothing to do with chemtrails?
They literally sprayed chemicals using aerial vehicles.
How does this not prove that similar things have happened?



Here you go...


So? They are still chemicals being sprayed by airplanes.



we can certainly debunk the "evidence" that is provided - contrails can't persist, contrails can't expand, contrails never used to do this, this water sample with aluminium proves chemtrails, etc.


Good, and we should continue doing this. But it is not a reason to completely close our minds to it.



In my opinion, chemtrails are what uninformed folks point to in the sky and claim to know it's something evil, or not normal. The people who think that every contrail that persists must be a chemtrail because........some idiot told them it was that way.


That's the reason i posted, they're the ones crying wolf.. and so we've come to the point of joking about it, but someday something like chemtrails could actually happen so we shouldn't let our guards down.


I'm in the wrong here though, my definition of geo-engineering seems to be a bit broader than most.
I took it too literally and did not know geo-engineering only includes global efforts and does not simply mean the artificial manipulation of a climate.


Aloysius, your wise-assedness is justified and I'll try to be less sheepy.

Guess I've got some homework to do..



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Skaffa



''Geoengineering is the application of geosciences, where mechanics, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and geology are used to understand and shape our interaction with the earth.'' - Wiki

Why not finish that quote? This is what follows those cherries you picked:

Geoengineers work in areas of (1) mining, including surface and subsurface excavations, and rock burst mitigation; (2) energy, including hydraulic fracturing and drilling for exploration and production of water, oil, or gas; (3) infrastructure, including underground transportation systems and isolation of nuclear and hazardous wastes; and (4) environment, including groundwater flow, contaminant transport and remediation, and hydraulic structures.
en.wikipedia.org...

Did you miss this from the top of the page?

This article is about engineering and geosciences. For intervention in the Earth’s climate system, see climate engineering.


And, not that it really matters much since this is not the geo-engineering referred to in this forum, but:

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2013)


From the link above to climate engineering

Climate engineering, also referred to as geoengineering, is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climatic system with the aim of reducing global warming.[1][2][3] Climate engineering has two categories of technologies- carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management. Carbon dioxide removal addresses a cause of climate change by removing one of the greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Solar radiation management attempts to offset effects of greenhouse gases by causing the Earth to absorb less solar radiation.

Geoengineering has been proposed as a potential third option for tackling global warming, alongside mitigation and adaptation.[4] Scientists do not typically suggest geoengineering the climate as an alternative to emissions control, but rather an accompanying strategy.[5] Reviews of geoengineering techniques for climate control have emphasised that they are not substitutes for emission controls and have identified potentially stronger and weaker schemes.[6][7][8] The costs, benefits, and risks of many geoengineering approaches to climate change are not well understood.[9][10]

No known large-scale climate engineering projects have taken place to date. Almost all research has consisted of computer modelling or laboratory tests, and attempts to move to real-world experimentation have proved controversial. Some limited tree planting[11] and cool roof[12] projects are already underway. Ocean iron fertilization has been given small-scale research trials.[13] Field research into sulfur aerosols has also started.[14]


I can't evaluate that final statement about sulfur aerosols as they are not mentioned in the abstract of the cited paper.

ETA: Nor does that final statement appear in the article so it has been stricken from the record.

edit on 15-12-2014 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Skaffa
I
Agent Orange has nothing to do with chemtrails?
They literally sprayed chemicals using aerial vehicles.
How does this not prove that similar things have happened?



similar things have happened - as I mentioned the spraying of chemicals from aircraft has never been in dispute - agricultural chemicals (of which Agent Orange is a prime example!), fire fighting, oil dispersant, cloud seeding....

But chemtrails are supposedly a specific case - they are an UNKNOWN SECRET material, "sprayed" from jet engines, usually at high altitude, for reasons unknown, and that look and behave exactly like contrails.

Agent Orange has nothing to do with that.

Attempts to expand the definition of chemtrail to include all these things are quite common - if you are going to include every chemical that is sprayed into the air it becomes ridiculous - your breathing and farts become chemtrails!!



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Skaffa


I can't evaluate that final statement about sulfur aerosols as they are not mentioned in the abstract of the cited paper.

Easily fixed...and done......it is wiki after all



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Skaffa

You made a point in the post I'm replying to about keeping an open mind about chemtrails which, on the face of it, seems perfectly fair.

However, when all of the evidence that has been provided for the existence of chemtrails by those who make those claims and their acolytes can be clearly and easily shown to be faked/lies/rubbish etc, then why would one still think that "chemtrails" are even a thing at all?

I would no more be open minded about chemtrails than I would be about pink unicorns or cheesy moons.

Geoengineering however is another matter. Vigilance on that is *required*, but as soon as you start entertaining thoughts of chemtrails you've already lost the plot and your vigilance isn't worth jack.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: waynos

The "you" in question being, of course, the generic you, not you personally.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: waynos

So the notion of chemtrails has become ridiculous to you because ''evidence'' so far has been debunked?

Again.. It's like the kid who cried wolf.
The perfect way to discredit a CT is to make it seem even more preposterous than it already is.

In my opinion combating climate change could be attempted by spraying chemicals into our atmosphere.
I don't think it is wise to compare the idea to pink unicorns just because some paranoid bastards have been crying and pointing their fingers at every airplane they see.
Just because it has not happened yet, does not mean it can't ever happen in the future.

Now i shouldn't go into detail further because my research on the subject isn't that extensive but..

The Tamaki Foundation sees it as the most probable solution to climate change.



Injections of sulfate aerosol into the stratosphere is the most popular and most likely geoengineering option implemented because – compared to a global shift to alternative sources of energy than fossil fuel – this option is simple and inexpensive: it could be deployed in less than two years by existing government contractors, such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin, who would vie for lucrative contracts to control the Earth's climate. Though most scientists are quite sure that the combination of increasing carbon dioxide and stratospheric aerosols would lead to profound changes in the climate (including those listed above), the research studies to quantify these changes have not yet been done. With inadequate science to inform a debate on this extremely dangerous proposal for a geoengineering solution to global warming, it is difficult to imagine that governments won't take the seemingly easy out and deploy this last-gasp technology to mitigate some of the global warming problem, rather than shift the global economy away from fossil to alternative clean fuels.

We are using state-of-the-art climate models to simulate and quantify the impact of this geoengineering "solution" on the regional and global climate, and to further quantify the impact that these climate changes will have on global food security. Our hope is that our findings will catalyze an informed debate on whether we should pursue this 'solution' before this it becomes an uninformed fait accompli.


Has anyone debunked these guys yet?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join