It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

look out for chemtrails in Alaska

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 04:21 PM
If you are a chemtrail believer, and you ran out of things to blame chemtrails on, and are left with geo-engineering, you are in luck. Of course if you believe this, you would have done some research into what geo-engineering is right? Well, for the sake of argument, let's just assume you were too busy to really look into it.

Geo-engineering is many things. From white painted rooftops, to reforestation, to SRM. Yes, SRM is the evil idea to spray sulfur into the air. But who came up with this crazy idea and why? Well, David Keith is one of the engineers that learned that volcanic ash, when emitted from a volcano, has a cooling effect, due to the particles that are spewed into the stratosphere. He and others decided that if we were to spray some sulfur into the air at about 50,000 feet, it would mimic a volcanic eruption and thus, cool the planet. Does this sound like a good idea? I didn't think so either. And apparently, neither do they. But to date, it's still the best, bad idea they have.

Now, on to how you can look for chemtrails in Alaska. Well, we just had a volcanic eruption. Since "chemtrails" are supposed to be SRM, that "they" covertly are spraying, what you see as aftermath of the eruption, should look exactly like what you consider chemtrails to be. After all, SRM is the proposal to mimic an eruption, and chemtrails are SRM according to the chemtrail overlords.

So if you look up and you notice that this doesn't look like white lines in the sky at all, it looks like a blue sky that has a bit of a tinge to it, you will be on the right track to understand what SRM is all about. And, if you are really careful and diligent with your research into this, you may find that SRM will not look a think like white lines in the sky, or as some like to say, contrails.

If you disagree with this line of logic, please explain why, drive by posts are useless.

posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 04:27 PM
a reply to: network dude


Seriously though, I'm surprised that SRM is still the best idea they have. I know ideas don't come to fruition in a matter of days, but scientists have had quite a long time to think of a better solution.

Maybe we're just limited by our current technology or historical ideals?

posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 04:42 PM
a reply to: TerryDon79

I really have no idea what "they" are thinking or doing, but it almost seems as if "they" are waiting to see if things start to change on their own. I could be way off on that. I hold out hope that long before anyone tries to circumvent Mother Nature, they give her a fighting chance to see if she can somehow do that thing she has done for about 4.5 billion years now. Adapt.

posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 04:46 PM
a reply to: network dude

I agree. The planet has been through many MANY changes since the first homo was around.

We may be speeding it up (a different debate), but I certainly don't think it will be as bad as all life will cease to exist (another different debate lol).

I think only time will tell if the planet will adapt or we end up screwing ourselves over by interfering too much.

posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 04:48 PM
a reply to: network dude

Pretty sure all that business in the sky in Alaska is because of the volcano near Dutch Harbour...or Chem-Trails...go with that.

posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 05:03 PM
It is pretty far away (like trying to see LA from Redding) but like most things up here... the weather sucks for any sky watching (right now).

Last close volcano did not present much even close to "white lines." It just looked more like a forest fire--brown and dark then we got back right to enjoying the summer.

posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 05:51 PM

originally posted by: TerryDon79

Seriously though, I'm surprised that SRM is still the best idea they have. I know ideas don't come to fruition in a matter of days, but scientists have had quite a long time to think of a better solution.

David Keith, as a scientist is supposed to be one of the best, still and all, he did the rounds looking for funding to do exactly as it said on the tin, that included the use of aircraft as a dispersant, and according to his blurb was to trial his ideas in Mexico a year or so ago...haven't heard much since, or if it did take place. His company though, he considered the best to do the job, others were poo in his estimation.

Anyway, say the government was involved, it would be without doubt, a special access programme for those contractors involved with all the caveats as below,

29 MAY 1992.

Proqram Cover story. (UNACKNOWLEDGED Proqram.). Cover
stories may be established for unacknowledged programs in order to
protect the integrity of the program from individuals who do not
have a need to know. Cover stories must be believable and cannot
reveal any information regarding the true nature of the contract.
Cover stories for Special Access Proqrams must have the approval of
PSO prior to dissemination.

So, waddayouthink? 'look out for chemtrails in Alaska', 'cos it's only a volcano and of course ash in the atmosphere looks nothing like a chemtrail anyway even though it contains chemicals, and even though the end result is intended to be the same as a volcanic eruption aftermath.
The only things to acknowledge is, (1) an aircraft contrail on it's own will look no different than an aircraft contrail with added ingredients, and that both are likely to be persistent, but not at any given time.
(2) SAP, as above is deliberate concealment, so not many are going to tell you about anything if in the matrix.

posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 06:43 PM
So was that draft ever approved? Is it an actual policy?

'Susan Hansen, a spokesperson for the Pentagon, grumbles that the document
on cover stories was confidential. "Whoever sent it to you was
unauthorized," she says. She points out, furthermore, that the document
is an unapproved draft version that "does not represent the policy of the
federal government."'.

But then of course that's what she'd say, right?

Anyway I think you're starting from the wrong end here. That same draft has been used to 'prove' that the government is hiding information about UFO's. The difference between chemtrails and UFO's is that there actually is more to UFO's than there is to chemtrails.

So if you think someone is spraying something from jets flying at cruise altitude, and that such activity results in something that looks exactly like contrails, then I suggest you find credible evidence that such is the case.

There's a handy guideline which can help you develop a credible argument for your chemtrail hypothesis. If you want anyone but the most gullible to pay any attention to your claim, this is the way to go about it:

1: Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”

2: Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

3: Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

4: Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

5: Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

6: Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

7: If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

8: Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

9: Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

As you can see, the chemtrail theory and it's proponents run into big problems when you observe each of the points here. For instance, there is no independent confirmation of the facts. In fact, there is no agreement on any of the 'facts' withing chemtrail circles even.

Debate on the evidence (if any) is not encouraged within chemtrail circles. Instead, adherance to chemtrail theory is lauded as an indication that one is 'awakened', whereas the unbelievers are regarded as 'sheeple'. That kind of thinking is cult territory.

And you can go down the list. Chemtrailism is rife with arguments from authority (just have a look at all the 'whistleblower' nonsense), there is no attempt to falsify it's theories, no alternative theories that may account for what's observed are spun, etc.

Just for fun give it a try. Pick your favorite theory, and see if it survives scrutiny by going down the list.
edit on 3201628 by payt69 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics


log in