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.

 

In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists

page: 16
42
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneManArmy

Who is Keith?


www.seas.harvard.edu...

He is the "go to" guy for geo-engineering. He has made many proposals on ways to combat global warming using methods that include spraying things into the atmosphere to limit the amount of sunlight we get in hopes to cool the planet. Good thing for all of us, he doesn't like the idea either since we don't know if that might do more harm than good.

You will see lots of fantastical claims bout SRM (solar radiation management) and things being sprayed, but so far, all of the reports use words like "could", and "might", and "proposed", all indicating that these ideas are still just that. But as with anything on a conspiracy site, there are those who are certain he's lying. After all, the government did do something bad before.




posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: OneManArmy

Its a reference to Dr David Keith, who gets referenced on here quite a lot. There are several articles and videos that show up on google searches related to him. this is one

recode.net...


The geoengineering guy?
Oh right yes I know who he is.

Thanks network dude, yes Im under the assumption that he is the worlds leading "expert" on geoengineering.
edit on 20152America/Chicago02pm2pmWed, 25 Feb 2015 12:01:16 -06000215 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy

Yes, you'd think so. However I've lost count of the number of times this has been argued on here. Rebelv may well have picked this up from those older threads, or the people who wrote them, which is why I want to reply.

Its illuminating how a false claim can gain traction and spread among people who, for whatever reason, aren't able to see through it. I see chemtrails as the same sort of thing.

ETA - No worries, I noticed you posted that description even as i was adding the photo to my post.

edit on 25-2-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: OneManArmy

Yes, you'd think so. However I've lost count of the number of times this has been argued on here. Rebelv may well have picked this up from those older threads, or the people who wrote them, which is why I want to reply.

Its illuminating how a false claim can gain traction and spread among people who, for whatever reason, aren't able to see through it. I see chemtrails as the same sort of thing.


Oh yes, I fully understand that, especially with my research into "satanic" paedophile rings.
Its so easy for false claims to gain traction and blow up out of control.
Well meaning people that think they are doing the right thing can be the most dangerous people on earth, simply because they really believe they are right.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy

Yes, and I do realise that can cut both ways equally, which is why I try to keep chemtrails and geo engineering apart in discussion (not always successfully). Conflating them together could be very dangerous because inclusion of the former can lead to discussion of the latter being considered ill-judged fantasy when it certainly isn't.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: OneManArmy

Yes, and I do realise that can cut both ways equally, which is why I try to keep chemtrails and geo engineering apart in discussion (not always successfully). Conflating them together could be very dangerous because inclusion of the former can lead to discussion of the latter being considered ill-judged fantasy when it certainly isn't.


When I first stumbled into this whole chemtrail debate, I didnt realise that was the case.
I think i spent a whole thread highlighting cases of chemical and biological testing and proving geoengineering, completely missing the point with regards to chemtrails. Which does go some way to explain some of my original "shill" accusations.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy


Who is Keith? And as for the other metals or barium titanate, I wouldnt have a clue.

...If someone is going to propose a particle, doesnt it help to have some scientific evidence?
Is there a link to any I could see?

I'll try to explain this with as few of my own words as possible.

originally posted by: Petros312
How many different ways does it need to be said? Ingestion of barium and inhalation of airborne barium particles will both show up as levels elevated above some usual amount in the blood, BUT the effects of the two different exposures will lead to different health issues. If we do not have some all important "level of barium in the blood" that is indicative of toxicity (but actually we do, and I'm not going there because I'm playing into your distraction if I do), it does not negate the simple claim:

Airborne metal particulate matter, some of which has been proposed by geoengineers as useful in some way for geoengineering, which includes barium, pose a health hazard to certain individuals, specifically the respiratory system.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


originally posted by: mrthumpy
You may have missed my question earlier. Can you clarify which geoengineering proposal you are referring to?
a reply to: Petros312



originally posted by: Petros312
Geoengineering: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?
"Keith proposes that disc-shaped, engineered nanoparticles, composed of layers of aluminum oxide, metallic aluminum, and barium titanate, be released into the stratosphere."



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: OneManArmy


Who is Keith? And as for the other metals or barium titanate, I wouldnt have a clue.

...If someone is going to propose a particle, doesnt it help to have some scientific evidence?
Is there a link to any I could see?

I'll try to explain this with as few of my own words as possible.

originally posted by: Petros312
How many different ways does it need to be said? Ingestion of barium and inhalation of airborne barium particles will both show up as levels elevated above some usual amount in the blood, BUT the effects of the two different exposures will lead to different health issues. If we do not have some all important "level of barium in the blood" that is indicative of toxicity (but actually we do, and I'm not going there because I'm playing into your distraction if I do), it does not negate the simple claim:

Airborne metal particulate matter, some of which has been proposed by geoengineers as useful in some way for geoengineering, which includes barium, pose a health hazard to certain individuals, specifically the respiratory system.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


originally posted by: mrthumpy
You may have missed my question earlier. Can you clarify which geoengineering proposal you are referring to?
a reply to: Petros312



originally posted by: Petros312
Geoengineering: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?
"Keith proposes that disc-shaped, engineered nanoparticles, composed of layers of aluminum oxide, metallic aluminum, and barium titanate, be released into the stratosphere."


I read up on geoengineering a while back, Here

I know who Dr David Keith is, but I thought you were referring to someone whose first name was Keith.
I have seen some of his interviews. Just wasnt savvy on his science. I dont doubt his scientific credentials.
But on the other hand, Keith down the pub, I would question his science.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy




But on the other hand, Keith down the pub, I would question his science.



But what if he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express?



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: rebelv

Most of what you have talked about seems like what contrails are. But the way they form is the moist heated air freezes around tiny particles, and they (usually) only do that at or above the 25,000 foot level, since that is where the air is cold enough and the conditions are right.

From what I understand a contrail under 15,000 feet is something of an anomaly. If we could get verification of something like that, I think this forum would get interesting quite quickly.



I agree, I'll see what I can do, and thanks for your reply.

Rebel 5



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos
I certainly respect your air photography, and thanks
for your reply and you're right it is hard to judge altitude
to a degree as an observer.

I wasn't so much guessing the altitude by the size of the
contrail but by my ability to see the plane, and how easy are hard
it is to see the plane, or I can't see the plane at all, I know its
flying at a very high altitude.

You probably have more experience than I do, so I'll give you
the benefit of the doubt.

Rebel 5



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: rebelv

No worries, just one thing to consider with using your ability to see the plane as a marker. This too is affected by factors other than distance. The main one is aircraft size. At exactly the same altitude you may not see a Citation (about 10 seats) where an A380 (550 seats) would be plainly and easily visible. They are the extremes of sizes but a 777 is more easily spotted that an A330, which in turn is easier to see than a 737 etc etc. haze can also effect visibility, even on an apparently clear day haze can ruin a photo and obscure an aircraft that would be plain to see on another day.

The main thing about looking into the sky is that there's nothing to use as a reference point, unlike on the ground where judging relative distances is fairly easy. If you want to try and identify trail heights a good tool is Flightradar 24. It's a website, but also has a decent smartphone app where you can track flights that you can see and it also tells you the aircraft type, operator, route, altitude and speed. It may take a little practice to get used to using because sometimes the plane you're looking at is further away geographically than you think. Here matching the only plane in the sky can help, or identifying several different flights and matching their relativity to each other with what you can see on the screen.

Sometimes unfortunately the plane you want to identify just isn't there. This is because FR24 uses ADS-B transponder data and not every aircraft is fitted with one, this has become very much the exception recently as even military types are showing up now for me when thry never used to. With this, you can know for certain what altitude that trail is at.

Here is an example of a picture where i pasted FR24 data into the photograph as a permanent record. Even here, the image is softened by haze while the sky looks clear and blue.



This was done as part of an experiment where i was specifically monitoring flights in response to someones claim of low lying chemtrails. My results were consistent, but thats just me and just where i live, but you can do the same if you think there is something to it.




edit on 26-2-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
I usually stay away from this topic.

Couldn't escape it today though. I don't like to choose a side on it, but I do watch the skies a lot. I have seen things in person that would make it quite difficult for me to completely write off the possibility of these operations.

Earlier I happened across a good read.

Figured I would share [the link below].


I missed this from above:

Chemtrails Exposed: A History of the New Manhatten Project

This was excellent on the history of weather modification and the US military's interest in "owning the skies," even for a blog, which is no reason to immediately discredit the info. There's a lot more interesting info at the link other than talk about the HAARP project. I like this:


In the 1967 National Science Foundation's ninth annual weather modification report, it reads, "ESSA [Environmental Science Services Administration] is also investigating the effect of cirrus clouds on the radiation budget of the atmosphere by studying aircraft-produced contrails which often spread into cirrus layers covering considerable fractions of the sky. One technique proposed for modifying lower cloud development has been the generation of a high level cirrus deck with jet aircraft. By intercepting solar radiation at high altitude it may be possible to influence larger scale cloud development elsewhere by reducing solar input and reducing convective cloud generation in areas where they are not needed."


No misinformation there at all on this document, and highly relevant regarding the claims made by some people labelled "chemtrailers" but dismissed by debunkers.




edit on -06:00America/Chicago28Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:59:04 -0600201504312 by Petros312 because: Quote



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

It'a a blog. And it makes some claims that aren't true.


Also of note is the fact that the United States Navy, of which Mr. Raborn was an admiral, is today one of the managers of the HAARP facility in Alaska. The HAARP facility contains the world's most powerful ionospheric heater which is documented to be able to modify the weather.


If there was documentation about HAARP modifying weather, I'd like to see it. As would the rest of the conspiracy world. It's been discussed to death, and theorized upon, but to date, nobody has offered any proof.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312

No misinformation there at all on this document, and highly relevant regarding the claims made by some people labelled "chemtrailers" but dismissed by debunkers.





Here is a great link to much more scientific studies on the effects of contrails.

Contrails and how they affect localized weather patterns have been studied for quite a while. Amazingly enough, some of the effects aren't fully understood as of yet. You do understand that contrails and their ability to block sunlight have nothing to do with chemtrails right?



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
You do understand that contrails and their ability to block sunlight have nothing to do with chemtrails right?


DOUBLESPEAK

If you don't know why, you will find out soon enough.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: network dude
You do understand that contrails and their ability to block sunlight have nothing to do with chemtrails right?


DOUBLESPEAK

If you don't know why, you will find out soon enough.


I have enjoyed your participation in this thread, you have made some very valid points.
But its seems you are starting to clutch at straws.

Sometimes you just have to realise that geoengineering and weather modification are not the same thing as chemtrails.

Everything that chemtrails is accused of doing, is being done, but just not as chemtrails.
I would assume that some low level spraying and testing has been done in secret to test the validity of dimming the sun as a means to control climate, and also to see if any side effects could be measured.
Is there currently any proof of it?
Not that I have been able to find.

And in an intelligent debate, facts and evidence are key.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: network dude
You do understand that contrails and their ability to block sunlight have nothing to do with chemtrails right?


DOUBLESPEAK

If you don't know why, you will find out soon enough.


Besides, being a cheerleader for "much more scientific" information on contrails has nothing to do with the fact that I just provided firm evidence that in 1967 a proposal was made by the Environmental Science Services Administration to study contrails and their associated cirrus clouds using jet airplanes in an effort to reduce solar radiation, which is precisely one of the claims made by so-called "chemtrailers." Providing a link to something "much more scientific" but still irrelevant regarding the prior link and it's associated quote constitutes use of distraction.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneManArmy
Sometimes you just have to realise that geoengineering and weather modification are not the same thing as chemtrails.

Everything that chemtrails is accused of doing, is being done, but just not as chemtrails.


No, it's not me that needs to see that sources exist to reinforce that "chemtrailers" include those who oppose geoengineering.


originally posted by: OneManArmy
And in an intelligent debate, facts and evidence are key.


I can see though that many people are confounding facts with what is social reality.

This is the perfect segue into a NEW THREAD TOPIC IN DEFENSE OF CHEMTRAIL CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.


edit on -06:00America/Chicago28Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:49:20 -0600201520312 by Petros312 because: link



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: network dude
You do understand that contrails and their ability to block sunlight have nothing to do with chemtrails right?


DOUBLESPEAK

If you don't know why, you will find out soon enough.


Besides, being a cheerleader for "much more scientific" information on contrails has nothing to do with the fact that I just provided firm evidence that in 1967 a proposal was made by the Environmental Science Services Administration to study contrails and their associated cirrus clouds using jet airplanes in an effort to reduce solar radiation, which is precisely one of the claims made by so-called "chemtrailers." Providing a link to something "much more scientific" but still irrelevant regarding the prior link and it's associated quote constitutes use of distraction.




LOL, you continue to make me smile.

I'll try it your way. pay close attention so you get all this:

I don't think anyone denies that studies about contrails have been done and may well continue to be done. Thanks for posting this. I hope that making this bold will emphasize that what you posted is not conspiracy, but science fact. No dispute. NONE.




top topics



 
42
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join