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.

 

New Chemtrail/Geoengineering film, "An UNconventional Shade of Grey" Official Trailer

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Maybe his test results are still in 'post-production'.




posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: smurfy


Everybody knows that there are patents out there to do just what 'Chemtrail theorists' are saying.

Show me one. ONE that is capable of producing a trail that is hundreds to thousands of times more than what is sprayed.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: smurfy




That cuts both ways tsurfer, you are a bit short on detail at your end, and good at shouting.


No the short of detail is at the chemtrail pusher side...as they haven't been able to provide any details that can be verified to back the claims.



Everybody knows that there are patents out there to do just what 'Chemtrail theorists' are saying.


No what is out there in patents is being misrepresented as to conform to what they don't understand it is they are seeing.

And again just because a patent was given it doesn't mean they are actually being used...how many times does this same conversation come up when discussing chemtrails?



Everybody knows that most of those who have proposals on chemtrail experiments have agreed that there is no good way to experiment, other than go out and do it.


Really who has proposed chemtrails and where have they said and agreed that the only way to experiment is to go out and do it...because nobody has ever said that.

But feel free to provide anything that backs your claims?



Now, are you going to tell me that nobody has done any experimentation in the manner proposed? even just a biddy biddy bit? That would not be denying ignorance.


Yes I am, but feel free to provide anything that shows they have?



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation




Show me one.


Good Luck.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h

a reply to: PredatorCrackling








Yeah I trust a guy on the Internet who debunks every single conspiracy.





That is what Denying Ignorance is about.







That cuts both ways tsurfer, you are a bit short on detail at your end, and good at shouting. Everybody knows that there are patents out there to do just what 'Chemtrail theorists' are saying. Everybody knows that most of those who have proposals on chemtrail experiments have agreed that there is no good way to experiment, other than go out and do it.



Now, are you going to tell me that nobody has done any experimentation in the manner proposed? even just a biddy biddy bit? That would not be denying ignorance.

No he's not shouting. What the hell does a patent have to do with this ? Of course you can put a plane up and spray stuff DUH. That is stating the bleedin obvious like crop spraying!!. The tricky bit is are they actually doing it and if so what are they spraying. white fluffy cloud like vapour emitted from a plane is not proof of chemtrails merely atmospheric conditions . Basic physics there I'm afraid. Oh and yes I am old enough to remember the 60's when we had contrails back then. I used to lie on my back in the garden and watch them. Probably due to the laws of physics being the same in the 60's as they are today.

I have not seen anyone present any evidence. Lots' of attacks for not believing but never a link to a respected website where the analysis is presented.

Come on challenge. Simply answer this reply with a link to a respected site with the chemtrail analysis proving chemtrails exist. NB the site must be the original site authored by the people who did the analysis. The analysis must be done using the double blind method to eliminate bias.

I won't bother holding my breathe (ironically enough
)



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: yorkshirelad

Have a read of this - to show why your request is a non starter. Self proclaimed debunkers always use that approach, it's really basic.

I don't even believe in chemtrails!



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: PredatorCrackling




Yeah I trust a guy on the Internet who debunks every single conspiracy.


That is what Denying Ignorance is about.



That cuts both ways tsurfer, you are a bit short on detail at your end, and good at shouting. Everybody knows that there are patents out there to do just what 'Chemtrail theorists' are saying.


There's patents to produce clouds that spread to cover thousands of square miles from just one plane?



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: smurfy


Everybody knows that there are patents out there to do just what 'Chemtrail theorists' are saying.

Show me one. ONE that is capable of producing a trail that is hundreds to thousands of times more than what is sprayed.


The patents are based on the spread of cirrus cloud just as any aircraft does every day, and when the conditions dictate, that's even part of Harvard scientist David Keith's philosophy for his spraying of micrometer sulphur particles. Thing is a plane does very well on it's own in cloud creation, so he is up for the idea of modifying a fleet of jets to spray sulfates into the stratosphere, where they would combine with water vapor to form aerosols. Dispersed by winds, these particles would cover the globe with a haze that would reflect roughly 1 percent of solar radiation away from Earth. (The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which shot some 10 million metric tons of sulfur into the air, reduced global temperatures about 1 degree F for at least a year.)
In fact last year Keith did a mini SRM test in Mexico..I haven't heard a peep since





One of the Oxford principles,
Principle 5: Governance before deployment.
The fifth principle is intended to addresses the transition from
geoengineering research to deployment. The boundary is fuzzy: an
experiment that could determine the efficacy of some techniques would
have to be of such scale and duration that it would amount to deployment.
During any such large-scale test, it would be likely that an unusual weather
event, for example, something similar to the Pakistan floods of 2011, would
be blamed on the test. (this also addresses part of my former post)

Keith pretty much ignored that ideal.
Others, (recent)

The Yuri Izrael-led Solar Radiation Experiment using sulphur particles 2008*

E-PEACE**.
The Eastern Pacific Emitted Aerosol Cloud Experiment (E-PEACE), (they sprayed aerosols from ships and monitored everything, including the ships tracks) They found that apart from their own aerosols, the ships tracking was also significant in the forcings
just like aircraft methinks.

SPICE 2012.
The Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering. This was aborted, despite it being a non particle test, and just water droplets.

* Yuri Izrael test received severe criticism. Ironically Izrael is not an AGW man, his thoughts must be elsewhere, and he wants to conduct the same thing on a larger scale!

**E-PEACE received minor criticism mostly from the press, likely because it was not called an SRM experiment....Sneaky buggers.
edit on 16-6-2015 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   
@smurfy: All very interesting, but what we need is evidence that jets are spraying anything other than H2O NOW, as we speak. Chemtrail believers are convinced that contrails can't persist without additional chemicals, and therefore persisting contrails have to have some chemicals added to them to make the trails persist.

What purpose exactly those purported chemicals serve, or what chemicals they actually are remains a mystery, since htere's no consensus among the believers. It's gone from killing the pupolation to dumbing down to SRM and a whole bunch of other claims that lack any kind of support.

In the meanwhile chemtrail believers have a heck of a time believing that contrails are formed by the interaction of a jet engine (or any other aerodynamic surface for that matter, depending on conditions) in an atmosphere that's saturated for ice. I know it's much more exiting to believe in a conspiracy theory than it is to actually do a little research and find out that contrails are in fact just clouds, like cirrus clouds.

So they keep pointing up in all their youtube videos and seem the think that every airline is involved in a grand scheme of... erh something.. Something really bad! The fact that there's still nothing they can point to as a result of over 70 years of supposed 'spraying' doesn't seem to bother them.

ust go and have a look at some videos of supposed 'chemtrailers'. You'll notice that there's always a gap between the engine exhaust and the start of of the contrail. Ever wondered why that is? Can't wait for your findings..

But then again.. that's not half as much fun as reading some more sensational junk on geoengineeringwatch right?
edit on 6201516 by payt69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
...Come on challenge. Simply answer this reply with a link to a respected site with the chemtrail analysis proving chemtrails exist. NB the site must be the original site authored by the people who did the analysis. The analysis must be done using the double blind method to eliminate bias...


While we're talking testing methodology here, if they ever take a sample of a a "chemtrail" (i.e., what many of us call a persistent contrail), then they should also take a sample of a short-lived contrail for testing.

Testing a sample of a persistent contrail may still result in finding trace pollutants from normal jet engine combustion, which they may try to claim is proof of spraying. Since the chemtrail believers say that a short-lived contrail is normal for jets (and not a chemtrail), but a persistent trail IS a chemtrail, then comparing the two would be important.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: soylent green is people


Testing a sample of a persistent contrail may still result in finding trace pollutants from normal jet engine combustion, which they may try to claim is proof of spraying. Since the chemtrail believers say that a short-lived contrail is normal for jets (and not a chemtrail), but a persistent trail IS a chemtrail, then comparing the two would be important.

That's exactly what I have been saying all along.
And, they probably would find novel chemistry too.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: soylent green is people




Testing a sample of a persistent contrail may still result in finding trace pollutants from normal jet engine combustion, which they may try to claim is proof of spraying.


Except what they will find is already known and has been long before chemtrails were ever started. So that is a route they really can't go.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Right. But if they sample both a persistent contrail (aka, an alleged "chemtrail") and a short-lived contrail, I suspect they will find that the "chemtrail" does not have any higher levels of pollutants than a short-lived contrail.

Sampling only the alleged contrail would not give them a control sample against which to compare it. For that matter, they would also need to sample non-trail stratospheric air.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Given they are using a Cessna 152 to do the sampling it seems unlikely they are going to get anywhere near "real" contrails - it's ceiling it 14,700 feet.....unless they go to Alaska in winter or similar??



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I sure hope this goes on as planned. If they do the tests correctly and document everything, (and pay attention to the units unlike they did in WITWATS) this should be a huge help in ending the back and forth.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
Given they are using a Cessna 152 to do the sampling it seems unlikely they are going to get anywhere near "real" contrails - it's ceiling it 14,700 feet.....unless they go to Alaska in winter or similar??

That does sound like a problem. If they find trace elements of "something" in the sampled air, there will be no way for them to know if it came from a trail or not.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
Given they are using a Cessna 152 to do the sampling it seems unlikely they are going to get anywhere near "real" contrails - it's ceiling it 14,700 feet.....unless they go to Alaska in winter or similar??


No, but why bother? Any higher and they might not pick up ground based pollution. I have a feeling they are going to find what they are looking for, even if they have to spray it themselves.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: soylent green is people

Sounds like a way to keep the meme alive in the minds of those who don't question the propagandists of this inane 'theory'.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
here is a portion of my transcript of this idiocy :


They [ climate models ] are Missing The big elephant in the room which is geo-engineering - Because we can prove that we feel that the best way to move forward with the class action lawsuit is addressing the fact that climate change cannot be determined based on the fact that ongoing geo-engineering programs have been ongoing for several years


time stamp : 05.23 >>>

i will let that sink in - but while it does , any one from the chemtrail believers camp care to comment ?



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
SPOILER ALERT; The government found out about there operation and stopped spraying. They found some things that appeared interesting but couldn't very due to shortcomings in equipment. Donate now for part four titled "When in doubt make stuff up". WIDMSU.




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join