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: Part 7. Steward of the Earth

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Rosalind Peterson is the founder of the California Skywatch website, and she's the California President and co-founder of the Agriculture Defense Coalition (ADC) formed to protect agriculture and the environment from experimental weather and atmospheric testing programs. Rosalind Peterson is NOT simply characterized as an environmentalist. She has been spoken about as an average conspiracy theorist, at times as something like a poster child for chemtrailers, particularly in relation to her appearance in the documentary, Shade. If you're wondering why an environmentalist who managed to be associated in some way with chemtrailers was effectively turned into a chemtrailer herself in the public's eye, you should read In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 2. Social Reality.

What Peterson and others from the ADC are concerned about is indeed a matter of what's happening in the sky, both inclusive of contrails and not. From the ADC website:
"Upper atmospheric testing continues without public oversight or consent and with little, if any, public notification. Now Global Geoengineering Governance Rules are being developed to decrease the amount of direct sunlight reaching the Earth (Solar Radiation Management), on a planetary scale. The use of toxic chemicals and other upper atmospheric particle releases like sulfur or aluminum oxide (alumina), particulates or gases are being planned without public consent or oversight."

My observations indicate that Rosalind Peterson's 2007 address at the UN about contrails, unregulated experiments in the sky, and the negative environmental impact this is having on the environment and global climate has been met with criticism in various forms, scrutinizing her presentation to the point of absurdity. Her opponents found it important to "debunk" the video in whatever manner possible because it was being circulated on the Internet (even though they admit she only speaks about "normal" contrails, weather modification, and geoengineering). At the forefront of this criticism is the typical claim that she presented no "rock solid" evidence that the contrails we see in the sky have been altered in some nefarious manner, of course highlighting the fact that another video exists www.youtube.com... in which she supposedly says there is no evidence supporting chemtrail conspiracy theory. Here's what Peterson actually says about evidence:

www.youtube.com...
(Video at 1:46)
"I find that the direct proof to link up who's doing what...and also I can tell you that in ten years of research, other than aluminum coated fiberglass, chaff releases by the US military, I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions. Now, I can prove that the rocket programs in the United States are releasing trimethylaluminum, aluminum oxides, barium. I can prove the rocket programs in the United States are just coating us with toxic chemicals all the time, and these programs are listed at NASA, NOAA, the US Air Force, the US Navy...I mean there's tests going on all the time. The US Navy care program is a prime example. So I can prove, I have so many documents I couldn't even put them all on the Internet even if I tried, because there are Pentagon reports, there's all kinds of reports dating back twenty, thirty years. When it come to proving what the jets are releasing, I don't have the documentation and I don't have a single study. I don't have a single, solitary, verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminum coated fiberglass by military aircraft. So, there's a differentiation for me in putting my name or associating myself with something where I can't back it up. Now, if anyone's got direct proof, they've got university studies, if you've got documents, government documents, if you've got reports, then that makes a big difference. But right now, after ten years of research, I can't do it."

As expected, debunkers of anything and everything chemtrail interpret her statement above to mean that the absence of evidence is automatically admission of a hoax. They bend what she's saying to suit their goal of proving something is false, and we're all supposed to firmly conclude all is well. In the video Peterson said the military defines the term "chemtrail" as nothing but a hoax, and of course the public is persuaded to use the lexicon enforced by the military because the USA is covertly run in ways like a police state (COINTELPRO anybody?). But should we really conclude that contrails are just a "normal" everyday nothing in the sky, even if common? I covered why such an evaluation is a half-truth based on little more than an opinion and desire to normalize our society in another topic, In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 6. Contrail vs Chemtrail but let's consider what Rosalind Peterson has to say.

From the video at the UN climate summit, Peterson explained that the mitigation of climate change requires measures that include the reduction of persistent contrails. She highlights the following:

1. The extent of contrails in the 60s was not nearly what we see today, with more persistent trails occurring from about the 80s.
2. Contrails contribute to global climate change through human-made clouds (even according to NASA).
3. Persistent contrails are the cause of "global dimming" and may negatively impact photosynthesis of plant life.
4. Human-made contrail clouds are trapping warmth in the atmosphere and creating more humidity, which causes proliferation of pests, molds, and diseases.
5. Contrail clouds are not "normal" and produce the kind of sky that has not been seen before.

www.youtube.com...
Highlight at 7:25 in the video:
"I want you to know that what you're seeing now a lot of times many scientists know, especially at NASA...that the skies we are seeing are not normal clouds formations. These are man-made."

Given the above, I ask you: Do we even need to prove there's some unexpected toxin present in contrails to agree there's a certain danger in their increasing presence?


(continued below)


edit on -05:00America/Chicago31Sat, 28 Mar 2015 03:28:01 -0500201501312 by Petros312 because: title format

edit on Fri Apr 3 2015 by DontTreadOnMe because: added wiki embed per OP




posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 03:20 AM
link   
(continued from above)
The fact is there IS something being sprayed in the sky, including what is manifested by contrails. It is not simply frozen H2O, nor is it simply a cloud. It continues to contribute to a global crisis and degradation of the environment as something that is human made. Whether you want to call this pollution a "contrail" or a "chemtrail" I believe it's reasonable and prudent to do what Rosalind Peterson is trying to do, which is call for oversight and regulation. She is making a rational, reasonable, and sane request regarding the aircraft graffiti being sprayed into the sky -- yet she is condemned as a CONSPIRACY THEORIST? Rather than praise the woman for the good work that she does -- work trying to ensure that future generations are not left with a toxic planet, rather than applaud her effort to address world leaders at a UN summit on climate change, rather than appreciate the self-sacrifice she's made in an effort to be a steward of the earth, she gets "debunked" like a chemtrail conspiracy theorist.


The collective effort of these debunkers are taking away the real need to focus on what is happening in the sky, and as such they act as cheerleaders for unregulated air traffic and the pollution it undeniably creates, including matters that involve persistent contrails in the sky. There are plenty of people with vested interests in profiteering and globalization who thank you, debunkers, including the airline industry, the US military, and the corporations ready to fund what may very well be a reckless attempt at geoengineering.

There's a passage in the bible about humans being given "dominion" over the earth, as if God intended human beings to take control of what was created on this life giving planet. It has been fixed firmly in Anglo cultures as a misunderstanding of the following bible passage (Genesis 1:26-28) as it's written in the English standard version:



26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.


Why is this relevant to my continuing discussion in defense of chemtrail conspiracy theorists? In short, because the people being called chemtrail conspiracy theorists include those who are trying to be stewards of the earth, and Rosalind Peterson is a perfect example. These people know that human dominion over the earth and sky is slowly destroying the planet. Despite what the military and their supporters will tell us, nobody owns the sky. Nobody has the "right" to do things in the sky that are harmful to the planet simply because it's the air space over a political border. Paradoxically, at the same time it's the manifestation of a spiritual crisis today to see people speaking about the extent of contrails in the sky and associated jet activity as nothing but "normal," it also reflects the long held belief that human beings own the earth and were intended to rule it. Contrails do pose a relative danger contributing to environmental degradation, but sadly, environmental degradation itself has become considered "normal" by too many people.

I forgive the people who act as opponents of stewards of the earth not because they're sorry for their "sin" but for a different reason: They know not what they do.


edit on Fri Apr 3 2015 by DontTreadOnMe because: post in OP was too long, had to move a paragraph



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

I heard of chemtrails in 2005, and from my understanding was no new idea then. Fast forward ten(+) years... If people truly believed it why has no one just video taped flying through one manned or unmanned and gotten some proof. Probably gets said all the time on here but what's the point of talking about it for a decade when the answer is within grasp. I think everyone is scared about all the time they dedicated if no answers turn up....



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 03:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312

The collective effort of these debunkers are taking away the real need to focus on what is happening in the sky


I'd hardly call people with a simple question "concrete evidence please?" debunkers. Evidence is right in the sky if this is a rampant problem.

And while I respect your beliefs, you can believe that and still use science for your argument, not speculation and faith based texts. Anyone can make something seem real after a while, and my guess is people have gone up but won't admit it unless they found something.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
And while I respect your beliefs, you can believe that and still use science for your argument, not speculation and faith based texts. Anyone can make something seem real after a while, and my guess is people have gone up but won't admit it unless they found something.


A "faith based text" (aka the bible in this case) is there to illustrate a point, not rely on speculation. This is a cultural matter as much as anything based on "scientific fact."

Moreover, it's appropriate given the Easter holiday.


edit on -05:00America/Chicago31Sat, 28 Mar 2015 03:39:54 -0500201554312 by Petros312 because: typo



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

I'm not even fully ruling out chemtrails. While I personally don't believe in the scope of what's claimed to be going on, I suppose weirder things have happened in this world. But call me old fashioned but I like to get courted into believing something with some concrete evidence.

It's not debunking when people want more than someone's testimonies saying they've read documents I can't. Let's break it down to what this really is, there are claims that their is mass amounts of dumping in the air at a conspiracy level... We live under said dumping. We have the means to go up to the source of said dumping. And not to skew words but she spoke of documents I haven't read.

You say don't trust the government or people trying to sell an idea you don't like 'debunkers', yet I should take her word? Or anyone else's on all loose "evidence" that is no better than a puzzle made soggy and pieces forced together with small gaps in between and I'm supposed to say it's worthy of complete. DTA.

Don't trust anyone. Critical thinking and evidence will shape my beliefs, and while I always love to question, this one is a little close to expiration on looking like it will be proved. Cause no one can afford to charter a plane? I could go skydiving next weekend for 200 bucks. Just saying.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 05:37 AM
link   

1. The extent of contrails in the 60s was not nearly what we see today, with more persistent trails occurring from about the 80s.


Yes that sounds like a big mystery.. Could it have something to do with more jets flying around these days?

Mind you, you claim to be speaking for the chemtrail community, but chemmies don't even accept your premise of there being 'persistent contrails'. Try preaching to them and see if you can make them accept just that little fact.


2. Contrails contribute to global climate change through human-made clouds (even according to NASA).


Again, the only ones disputing that fact are chemtrail believers


3. Persistent contrails are the cause of "global dimming" and may negatively impact photosynthesis of plant life.


See previous response. Chemtrail believers don't believe in 'persistent contrails'. Go and watch WITWATS, and it'll tell you in the first 2 minutes that contrails aren't supposed to persist AT ALL. Go and ask Michael Murphy, Dane Wigington, Max Bliss, Ian Simpson or any of those other nutballs.

Stating that persistent contrails are THE cause of global dimming is very misleading. It's caused by industry (and volcanoes such as El Chichon and Pinatubo outbursts) in general, and incomplete combustion (such as diesel and all the woodfires of India), and actually in the last decade a reversal of the trend has been noted, despite the increase of air traffic:

From en.wikipedia.org...

'The incomplete combustion of fossil fuels (such as diesel) and wood releases black carbon into the air. Though black carbon, most of which is soot, is an extremely small component of air pollution at land surface levels, the phenomenon has a significant heating effect on the atmosphere at altitudes above two kilometers (6,562 ft). Also, it dims the surface of the ocean by absorbing solar radiation.[27]

and:

Experiments in the Maldives (comparing the atmosphere over the northern and southern islands) in the 1990s showed that the effect of macroscopic pollutants in the atmosphere at that time (blown south from India) caused about a 10% reduction in sunlight reaching the surface in the area under the pollution cloud — a much greater reduction than expected from the presence of the particles themselves.[28] Prior to the research being undertaken, predictions were of a 0.5–1% effect from particulate matter; the variation from prediction may be explained by cloud formation with the particles acting as the focus for droplet creation. Clouds are very effective at reflecting light back out into space.

The phenomenon underlying global dimming may also have regional effects. While most of the earth has warmed, the regions that are downwind from major sources of air pollution (specifically sulfur dioxide emissions) have generally cooled. This may explain the cooling of the eastern United States relative to the warming western part.[29]

'The Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN) has been collecting surface measurements. BSRN was started in the early 1990s and updated the archives in this time. Analysis of recent data reveals that the surface of the planet has brightened by about 4% in the past decade. The brightening trend is corroborated by other data, including satellite analyses.'



Sun-blocking aerosols around the world steadily declined (red line) since the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, according to satellite estimates. Credit: Michael Mishchenko, NASA





4. Human-made contrail clouds are trapping warmth in the atmosphere and creating more humidity, which causes proliferation of pests, molds, and diseases.


On the other hand, they also 'dim' the sunlight, which has a cooling effect. The net effect is still disputed (as far as I know)


5. Contrail clouds are not "normal" and produce the kind of sky that has not been seen before.


That depends on your definition of 'normal'. If normal means 'no human intervention' then very little you do in your daily life is 'normal'. Are cars normal? How about a cellphone? Is a network of highways containing millions upon millions of cars every single day normal? Is it normal to have miles and miles of fields containing just 1 kind of crop? None of these things have been seen before, so they fit your definition. Maybe we should wipe humans from the earth entirely, so everything can be 'normal' again. Which is in fact what CT's are claiming is the aim of 'the elite', so you may have a common ideal with them after all.
edit on 28-3-2015 by payt69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Petros312


Given the above, I ask you: Do we even need to prove there's some unexpected toxin present in contrails to agree there's a certain danger in their increasing presence?

No, of course not. Just make the case for that "certain danger".

On the other hand, if you're claiming "chemtrails" then of course you would need to at least provide sufficient evidence that they even exist before any rational person would agree. Without conflation, without bait and switch.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

In an earlier thread of yours I linked to an old thread of mine where it was shown that there were billions of pounds of aluminium and barium released every year from ground based sources.

Why are you ignoring this fact?



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

It's inconvenient to have to shuffle to refute data. Yet in this subject often people get mad when you ask for data when logically it can be obtained if it existed.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus




Why are you ignoring this fact?


Because if he actually paid attention he wouldn't have something to base his silly threads on...what is this #7 we have?



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Petros312




Why are you ignoring this fact?


So I see you think Rosalind Peterson is your go to girl in this thread, but again you fail to realize she has admitted tono evidence of Chemtrails, yet you post a link to a video that says this...


Chemtrails, Here is your PROOF 100% Real "MUST WATCH"


Now how exactly does that work when she said, and I have posted the video that she has not seen any evidence that shows chemtrails exist.

So how can what she says in that video be taken seriously when she admits that she has never seen evidence they do exist...looks like the old youtube poster is lying and you fell for it hook line and sinker.

And you need to remember chemtrails aren't geoengineering as you can't change what something is to fit your mindset...it doesn't work like that in the real world.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   



Given the above, I ask you: Do we even need to prove there's some unexpected toxin present in contrails to agree there's a certain danger in their increasing presence?





Their danger has nothing to do with toxins. Could you explain how toxins would get into the contrails in the first place?

The problem with your argument is that she has been adopted by chemtrailers as one of their own instead of being placed there by debunkers Nobody is debunking her claims because there is nothing to debunk as far as chemtrils.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

I don't mind faith based texts or applying them to matters as long as it's relevant to the topic at hand. I would have appreciated some real information rather than old scripture or faith that Peterson is accurately representing the information my eyes cannot see.


But in the spirit of proving I do love reading from all cultures and beliefs I'll quote one I find relevant to the lack of response for our request of real evidence.


Hagakure "Book of the Samurai"

"It is bad when one thing becomes two. One should not look for anything else in the Way of the Samurai. If one understands things in this manner, he should be able to hear about all Ways and be more and more in accord with his own."


While my ways and beliefs are flexible and I believe mine are not solidified if I cannot listen to opposition with emotional intelligence, I require evidence for those to be shifted.


Should this be an issue in which it warrants priority above more pressing matters in our world, and they truly drop particulates in the manner this theory portraits, than I suggest you redirect your energy and conviction to allying like minded believers and accomplish the very feasible task of collecting said mass particulates.



The sky is an old Frontier, let us not rely on speculation and clinging to straws for a belief this strong. God forbid a whole school of thinking find out they wasted a decade or two to commitment to an idea that fell apart.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

Actually science says clouds cool the earth not heat it. Clouds are caused by cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere. Solar flares and sun spots cause the cosmic rays from hitting the earth warming the planet. When you have no sun spots and fewer solar flares the cosmic rays hit the atmosphere and create clouds whereby cooling the planet. That is where we are at today.


edit on 28-3-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Clouds are similar to sweating, the energy I used to cover the liquid to gas. And in cases can block rays during hot spells like a warm front causing a storm. The clouds are also in a cooler part of the atmosphere and drop the rain which can also cool as it drops. Double whammy.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: anton74
The problem with your argument is that she has been adopted by chemtrailers as one of their own instead of being placed there by debunkers Nobody is debunking her claims because there is nothing to debunk as far as chemtrils [sic].


She is spoken about by opponents of people labelled chemtrail conspiracy theorists ("debunkers") as a "conspiracy theorist." One recent example on ATS, which currently has 39 stars:


originally posted by: tothetenthpower
So, this woman...isn't really anything different than your average conspiracy theorist...


So yes it is debunkers who label her as such. I don't see chemtrailers labeling her, but I DO see that what she is concerned about is what many people labelled chemtrail conspiracy theorists are also concerned about, and this is that something harmful is being sprayed in the sky, which may or may not be indicative of what looks like the condensation trail of jet aircraft, which in several ways does qualify as a "chemical trail" or "chemtrail" for short (See In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 6. Contrail vs. Chemtrail ).



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Petros312





So yes it is debunkers who label her as such. I don't see chemtrailers labeling her, but I DO see that what she is concerned about is what many people labelled chemtrail conspiracy theorists are also concerned about, and this is that something harmful is being sprayed in the sky, which may or may not be indicative of what looks like the condensation trail of jet aircraft, which in several ways does qualify as a "chemical trail" or "chemtrail" for short (See In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 6. Contrail vs. Chemtrail ).


Just wondering how many times you are going to keep going back to your own threads that didn't prove anything in the first place?

Just because you made a thread doesn't make it true.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I know you're intentionally distracting readers, but the post to indicate Rosalind Peterson is indeed called a conspiracy theory was clearly quoted:


originally posted by: tothetenthpower
So, this woman...isn't really anything different than your average conspiracy theorist...


And this is NOT from my thread. The shift in focus you are attempting is away from a fellow debunker who has now been proven wrong.



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Petros312




I know you're intentionally distracting readers, but the post to indicate Rosalind Peterson is indeed called a conspiracy theory was clearly quoted:


What am I distracting from?

Everything you think is some breaking information is nothing more than rehashed debunked BS...but feel free to keep posting the same bunk and don't get your feelings hurt when it get's debunked.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join