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.

 

TV Meteorologist shot. Chemtrail Believers Applaud it

page: 5
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaws1975

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

Nobody is denying that things have been sprayed out of planes. However, what some of us are saying is that the trails such as seen in the images below are not chemtrails, but contrails:






So since you are the one claiming that they are not chemtrails, but contrails, how can you prove that?



They are contrails, according to all known science and experience of them, until someone can show they aren't. That's how it works. Like if you post a picture of a pet dog, our experience in life teaches us that it is indeed a dog, if I want you to believe it's not a dog it's up to me to provide the evidence that proves it, you follow?

I think a more pertinent question is why do you think a chemtrail could or would look anything like that?

My guess is that it's either because you read it on the Internet, or because you have no experience of aircraft at all and think that's what something coming out of a plane would look like.




posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaws1975
So since you are the one claiming that they are not chemtrails, but contrails, how can you prove that?


Because they look exactly like the contrails that high altitude planes have been producing for 70+ years (although coming to prominence starting with the jet-age of the 1950s). If they look just like those contrails, then you would need to give me a reason why they are something else other than contrails.

Actually, the first thing you would need to do is show me a trail that has been shown to be a chemtrail so we could compare the characteristics of that proven chemtrail against the trails in the picture.


edit on 12/22/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
This thread alone proves chemtrail believers dont applaud it.. Id say case closed. Even if he got shot by a cchemtrail believer it doesnt prove anything about the rest. It proves there was one real lunatic among tthem.

And the Fb posters could be shills for all we know. Perfect situation to exploit and make conspiracy theorists look crazy.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos

I'm not sure what to make of this chemtrail nonsense, I'm open to the evidence taking me either way on this topic. However, it has been acknowledged that in the past we have been secretly sprayed. It's reasonable to think there is an ongoing attempt to do the same that they have already done, the precedent has been set. At the very least you have to admit it's a possibility. And if it's a possibility, then why so much name calling? That's another thing I have noticed on this forum, the skeptics almost always are name calling and throwing jabs at anybody who believes chemtrails are real. Makes a neutral person think that the chemtrailers might be on to something.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: Zaphod58

That wasn't my question for network dude, my question is why does he admit they have happened, and in other threads he says the very idea of chemtrails are ignorant.


Wait, what? I admitted they happened? Like I would know?

If you work on the reading comprehension, you might see that I said that it's possible that something COULD be sprayed from planes, but I feel that all the lines in the sky are contrails, as they sure do look and act like them. I think as Waynos said, the whole premise for chemtrails was a lie, so yes, the idea to me is ignorant.

Now, could someone spray something from planes? Yes, they have, and I am quite sure they could do it again. Would it look like contrails? I don't' think so. But then again, I really don't know.

Please feel free to find any post where I claimed other.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaws1975
That's another thing I have noticed on this forum, the skeptics almost always are name calling and throwing jabs at anybody who believes chemtrails are real. Makes a neutral person think that the chemtrailers might be on to something.



Yep, if someone is against a particular conspiracy, it makes it true. I don't believe in hollow Earth. I think the conspiracy is silly. Is it true now?

You make me smile.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude




You make me smile.



Whatever creams your twinkie!



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:39 PM
link   
funny comments.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: waynos

I'm not sure what to make of this chemtrail nonsense, I'm open to the evidence taking me either way on this topic. However, it has been acknowledged that in the past we have been secretly sprayed. It's reasonable to think there is an ongoing attempt to do the same that they have already done, the precedent has been set. At the very least you have to admit it's a possibility. And if it's a possibility, then why so much name calling? That's another thing I have noticed on this forum, the skeptics almost always are name calling and throwing jabs at anybody who believes chemtrails are real. Makes a neutral person think that the chemtrailers might be on to something.


One has to be open to evidence, I suppose it depends what you would class as evidence. I've nearly been taken in by supposed test results posted from chemtrail websites etc, until I looked at the numbers. If I can see that the numbers make no sense then the supposed evidence is flawed. An example is a claim of spraying being proven due to the aluminium content in a soil sample, that not only ignored the fact that anything in soil could have come from anywhere, but actually claimed a content level that was lower than the normal figure for soil anyway! Evidence like this preys on the uninformed. It's the same with evidence in the form of pictures of chem spray planes, when one already knows, or quickly discovers, that the chem spray interior is actually a ballast test rig on a prototype airliner, or the chem spray pod is really a Cobham Mk10 hose drum unit, or worst of all, pictures of "heavy spray days" that show contrail grids. When the evidence presented is false, it's not evidence at all. An interesting spin is when someone says " yes but if you take that together with the patents and past events then it must be true" or similar. Let's look at that;

The past events were real enough, but they were low level because you cannot target a spray from seven miles up, everything released was detectable and most releases weren't from aircraft at all so the relevance to contrail/chemtrails is not really there.

Patents

(I am not condoning this source, notice their donate button, I regard them as scammers

The patents are records of ideas, anyone can patent anything and you could trawl the patent office to prove just about anything you want to, including flying saucers. Number of these patents that has surfaced in material form =0. Also the list looks impressively long, but when you read them most having nothing to do with the subject anyway, almost as if your not meant to ACTUALLY read them :-)

So if you add an unrelated historic event, a list of paper ideas that don't actually exist and a bunch of lies about photographs and test results this is supposed to prove chemtrails aren't a scam?

I don't see it.

It's intersting that you think that because there has been secret spraying in the past, then it's reasonable to think there is now. I disagree. I think it's reasonable to suspect there could be, but evidence would be needed to say there is. If anyone has ANY evidence for being sprayed then fair enough, because such a thing as spraying would be ridiculously easy to do. It's not like I'm saying it can't be done or that nobody would. My argument is about people who think they're being sprayed when they look at contrails. Hence my previous question, why would you think a spray would look anything like contrails when NO previous example ever has and the only reason people think it now tends to be because they read about it on a scam website?

Any name calling that I've been guilty of is borne out of frustration when some people are unable to discern what anyone else might call "the bleeding obvious", but to say it in any way validates their claims is a bit of a reach. I'm sure you have also had occasion in life to regard someone as an idiot for not knowing a simple matter of fact, however it is regrettable when my frustration gets the better of me and I type it out.

edit on 23-12-2014 by waynos because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-12-2014 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: waynos
It's reasonable to think there is an ongoing attempt to do the same that they have already done



Why? The secret spraying operations in the past have been from trucks and low flying planes to test the dispersal of chemical and biological agents in case of attack during the cold war. Is this what you think is happening now?



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 02:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Urantia1111




No they don't want to look THAT up.


Really, because do you think this is the first time that has been discussed?

But here you go since you think we don't want to look it up...

www.cdc.gov...

www.atsdr.cdc.gov...

And also it should be known that if the Cadmium Sulfide was set on fire then the fumes would have been a problem, but as just acute exposure you will live without any adverse side effects.

Maybe you should have looked it up and saved yourself the space of typing foolish things.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: jaws1975




It's reasonable to think there is an ongoing attempt to do the same that they have already done, the precedent has been set.


It's also reasonable to understand why they did what they did and understand what they used was not going to harm the population of those experiments.

And btw there was no harmful side effects from those experiments.

www.nytimes.com...

And that is in no way indicative that these types of experiments are happening as we speak.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

Because 1 guy said chemtrails in the chat box? You guys are reaching for blame. 1 doesn't speak for all you know. people make the same mistakes with religion. one guy that's says he's a Christian then shoots 5 ppl or something crazy, and then people go "look that's what Christians believe". are you guys retarded? or just a little slow. if you find the one bad example and then go off of that to support your theory. you kind of make yourself look stupid.. Just saying ;D



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Many tv weather personalities are real meteorologists. Particularly the staff at the weather channel. Our local news employs real meteorologists. I don't know about this guy but I think your wrong about script readers there. a reply to: Chadwickus



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: MikeHawke
if you find the one bad example and then go off of that to support your theory. you kind of make yourself look stupid.. Just saying ;D


The link was posted on "Global Skywatch". A Chemtrail group's facebook page.

Not reading or comprehending the OP can make you look stupid as well. Just sayin.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: MikeHawke

You're misinterpreting what Chadwickus is saying. He isn't saying that a chemtrail believer was responsible for the shooting; all he is saying is that some chemtrail believers are seizing upon this shooting to applaud the fact a weatherman was shot, because in their minds weathermen "suppress the truth about chemtrails".

It's a sad fact that a chemtrail group (or any group, for that matter) would applaud the shooting of a weatherman as "Karma", as if he deserved being shot for simply being a weatherman or meteorologist.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MysterX

So if a black man is murdered by a white man, you wouldn't think it possible that race hatred might not be the strongest motive?


Possible sure. More likely I'd think the white guy was a cop. Don't shoot the messenger.
I just read the news, I don't write it.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
The shooter will probably turn out to be the husband of the woman this dude is boffing.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I agree with you but I just want to point out one little thing...ATS has a donate button on every page. Are they scammers too?a reply to: waynos



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: AutumnWitch657


It depends what they are asking for money for. I had seriously never noticed that until you mentioned it, so I went looking. Is it new?



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join