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.

 

Chemtrail and GEoengineering Programs Confirmed in Testimony at UN

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014




I will say that the Op has not done his research. Petersen has been debunked time after time

Even by herself lol.

It's not often you can debunk a thread by using the same person mentioned in the thread.


originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: BO XIAN

The video is from 2007, and she isn't talking about chemtrails from planes.
Here's her in an interview in 2012


"We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs. And if we go to sue someone, we have to have enough rock solid evidence that is so tight to make a case so that we don't lose the case, and that we have many many people, in other words experts in various fields, to testify on our behalf. This mean university professors, this means people that can come and back up our statements, back up the studies, where we can prove that the jets for example reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth, they change the climate. And so what happens is, that when I see though, that we are talking about suing, ... who? In other words, 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 oxide, 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's Pentagon reports, there's all kind of reports dating back twenty, thirty years. When it comes 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 has 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."


edit on 19-5-2016 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 19 2016 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: 3danimator2014




I will say that the Op has not done his research. Petersen has been debunked time after time

Even by herself lol.

It's not often you can debunk a thread by using the same person mentioned in the thread.


originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: BO XIAN

The video is from 2007, and she isn't talking about chemtrails from planes.
Here's her in an interview in 2012


"We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs. And if we go to sue someone, we have to have enough rock solid evidence that is so tight to make a case so that we don't lose the case, and that we have many many people, in other words experts in various fields, to testify on our behalf. This mean university professors, this means people that can come and back up our statements, back up the studies, where we can prove that the jets for example reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth, they change the climate. And so what happens is, that when I see though, that we are talking about suing, ... who? In other words, 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 oxide, 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's Pentagon reports, there's all kind of reports dating back twenty, thirty years. When it comes 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 has 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."



Exactly, and i am willing to place a monetary bet with someone that none of the people who defended the Op or the Op himself will resurface here to admit they got it wrong.

I don't get it, do people just find one story/link/video and then just post? Does no one spend 5 f*cking minutes doing any research on what they are posting? And they get mad at US!
edit on 19-5-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

And that is how you destroy a thread. Good find.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014




I don't get it, do people just find one story/link/video and then just post? Does no one spend 5 f*cking minutes doing any research on what they are posting? And they get mad at US!

It's obviously because we are paid shills.

Still waiting for my check though...



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: 3danimator2014




I don't get it, do people just find one story/link/video and then just post? Does no one spend 5 f*cking minutes doing any research on what they are posting? And they get mad at US!

It's obviously because we are paid shills.

Still waiting for my check though...


Yeah, me too! Although i guess i can be seen as more of a cheerleader to debunkers (to lazy to provide all the proof that the proper debunkers dig up)



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: 3danimator2014




I will say that the Op has not done his research. Petersen has been debunked time after time

Even by herself lol.

It's not often you can debunk a thread by using the same person mentioned in the thread.


originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: BO XIAN

The video is from 2007, and she isn't talking about chemtrails from planes.
Here's her in an interview in 2012


"We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs. And if we go to sue someone, we have to have enough rock solid evidence that is so tight to make a case so that we don't lose the case, and that we have many many people, in other words experts in various fields, to testify on our behalf. This mean university professors, this means people that can come and back up our statements, back up the studies, where we can prove that the jets for example reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth, they change the climate. And so what happens is, that when I see though, that we are talking about suing, ... who? In other words, 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 oxide, 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's Pentagon reports, there's all kind of reports dating back twenty, thirty years. When it comes 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 has 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."



Exactly, and i am willing to place a monetary bet with someone that none of the people who defended the Op or the Op himself will resurface here to admit they got it wrong.


I'm no psychologist but would that be part of the cognitive dissonance that is so prevalent among the conspiracy community? They can't possibly be wrong so therefore they can't possibly admit that they are



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

THANKS

That was a meaty post to consider more carefully once I've done with my VA hospital trip and procedure.

I certainly don't claim to have studied the issue a great deal at all.

The article in the OP SOUNDED reasonable, to me.

I still have a hard time thinking that there is 0.0000% fire with so much smoke.

Yet, I've certainly been wrong before.

As I recall, there have been a number of whistle blowers come forward saying some serious things about what's being done in the skies.

Yes, we all breathe the same air. My assumptions about that have been:

1. Some of the ruthless idiots at the time may not be aware that the air is sooooo mixed, it's been calculated that every organism alive--certainly every human--has breathed some molecule or atom of air that every other organism who has ever lived has breathed.

2. The elite may well have medical, nutrition benefits which the rest of us don't have, which protect them against such hazards in the air, water and food.

I don't think there is 0.00000% ugly stuff going on deliberately with chemtrails. An engineer friend of mine who retired from Boeing thinks I'm wrong--and he believes in globalism ugliness as much as I do. One of us is likely wrong. I may be wrong. I don't currently think so.

I'm willing to study it a bit more when I return home. I'm not planning an exhaustive study. I have other priorities.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: 3danimator2014




I will say that the Op has not done his research. Petersen has been debunked time after time

Even by herself lol.

It's not often you can debunk a thread by using the same person mentioned in the thread.


originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: BO XIAN

The video is from 2007, and she isn't talking about chemtrails from planes.
Here's her in an interview in 2012


"We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs. And if we go to sue someone, we have to have enough rock solid evidence that is so tight to make a case so that we don't lose the case, and that we have many many people, in other words experts in various fields, to testify on our behalf. This mean university professors, this means people that can come and back up our statements, back up the studies, where we can prove that the jets for example reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth, they change the climate. And so what happens is, that when I see though, that we are talking about suing, ... who? In other words, 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 oxide, 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's Pentagon reports, there's all kind of reports dating back twenty, thirty years. When it comes 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 has 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."



Exactly, and i am willing to place a monetary bet with someone that none of the people who defended the Op or the Op himself will resurface here to admit they got it wrong.


I'm no psychologist but would that be part of the cognitive dissonance that is so prevalent among the conspiracy community? They can't possibly be wrong so therefore they can't possibly admit that they are


Must be something like that mate. And they accuse us of being close minded.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: 3danimator2014




I will say that the Op has not done his research. Petersen has been debunked time after time

Even by herself lol.

It's not often you can debunk a thread by using the same person mentioned in the thread.


originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: BO XIAN

The video is from 2007, and she isn't talking about chemtrails from planes.
Here's her in an interview in 2012


"We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs. And if we go to sue someone, we have to have enough rock solid evidence that is so tight to make a case so that we don't lose the case, and that we have many many people, in other words experts in various fields, to testify on our behalf. This mean university professors, this means people that can come and back up our statements, back up the studies, where we can prove that the jets for example reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth, they change the climate. And so what happens is, that when I see though, that we are talking about suing, ... who? In other words, 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 oxide, 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's Pentagon reports, there's all kind of reports dating back twenty, thirty years. When it comes 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 has 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."



Exactly, and i am willing to place a monetary bet with someone that none of the people who defended the Op or the Op himself will resurface here to admit they got it wrong.


I'm no psychologist but would that be part of the cognitive dissonance that is so prevalent among the conspiracy community? They can't possibly be wrong so therefore they can't possibly admit that they are

True conspiracy theorist's hate the new age CT group. They post any youtube video (like the one regurgitated in this this thread from 9 years ago) and spin it in their favor to re-affirm delusional beliefs.

A good conspiracy theorist will ALWAYS first try to debunk it. If they can't, then they go hmmm, maybe something is here.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Exactly, and i am willing to place a monetary bet with someone that none of the people who defended the Op or the Op himself will resurface here to admit they got it wrong.

.
You would be WRONG

In the last 10 years, I've probably admitted I was wrong on ATS many times more than the next runner-up.

It's OK for me to admit I'm wrong. I know I'm human. I know I'm flawed. I know my perspective is not perfect. I know my analyses and conclusions are not 100% right 100% of the time.

I earnestly work to avoid being arrogant, haughty, smug, self-righteous and/or prissy.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Vector99



The article in the OP SOUNDED reasonable, to me.




Im sorry mate, i don't mean to attack you. But it SOUNDED reasonable to you, so you post it and follow it up with negative remarks about people who debunk this kind of crap?

No research done whatsoever. You read something that sounded good and backed up this odd fantasy you have of the elite spraying us (and them and their loved ones) and posted it.

You didn't want to read more about it? Maybe follow up reading that article with a few more links, dig a little deeper?... therefore assuring that you would have seen its rubbish.

One read, one article about something supposedly incredibly serious....post it!

Do you see a flaw in the process here?



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

I am curious where your personal assaultiveness comes from.

I don't think it adds anything useful to the debate.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Exactly, and i am willing to place a monetary bet with someone that none of the people who defended the Op or the Op himself will resurface here to admit they got it wrong.

.
You would be WRONG

In the last 10 years, I've probably admitted I was wrong on ATS many times more than the next runner-up.

It's OK for me to admit I'm wrong. I know I'm human. I know I'm flawed. I know my perspective is not perfect. I know my analyses and conclusions are not 100% right 100% of the time.

I earnestly work to avoid being arrogant, haughty, smug, self-righteous and/or prissy.


I suspect that you only posted this retraction because of my comment. Ive been around the chemtrail forum long enough to know this. But i'll take your word for it if you say thats how it is.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

You are obviously welcome to continue to crucify me over it.

I hope it helps you sleep better.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN
No worries


The chemtrail thing in the sense that most chemtrail believers is just impossible. No way no how could such a global conspiracy exist, too many common folk would have to be involved.

The other thing is dispersion. You literally couldn't under any circumstance control where such chemicals released at 30,000 feet will end up.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

What is the origin of such PERSONAL hostility?

When did I personally pee in your cereal?

Curious.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Vector99

I am curious where your personal assaultiveness comes from.

I don't think it adds anything useful to the debate.

I wasn't referring to you specifically, if it came across that way I apologize.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Yes and no on dispersion.

They have arial sprayed agents testing dispersion probably more than a dozen times. IIRC, some of those times have been INFECTIOUS agents.

I think once was over the greater San Francisco bay area.

edit on 19/5/2016 by BO XIAN because: sp



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Forgiven--I forgive you.

It's just a curiosity chronically on ATS.

It seems to be a knee-jerk reflex for 30-60% of the posters far too often.

Going to leave this thread for now and tend to other net things before packing my suitcase.

I'm only interested in the truth. My ego in the matter is not of any eternal significance.

Cheers.
edit on 19/5/2016 by BO XIAN because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: 3danimator2014

What is the origin of such PERSONAL hostility?

When did I personally pee in your cereal?

Curious.


Why are you taking it personally? I have a valid issue with who you went about posting this? Its not personal, i don't know you. Why does everything have to be personal.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join