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.

 

US Government admits to ET weapons and chemtrails?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So, Who'd you buy the video from, Cliff Carnicom or Will Thomas, and how much did it cost you?

Oh, and BTW, as for the "dried blood cells" bit. Do yourself a favor and read up on eletctrolytes and osmatic pressure in human cells before you buy into that B.S.

[edit on 5-2-2005 by HowardRoark]


What do you think folks, is he saying in subtle words that I was an idiot for paying my way to more knowledge, or does he want to pick up the tab?

But I did notice there was no "conspiracy" rhetoric this time.

I have absolutely no idea what "eletctrolytes and osmatic pressure in human cells" are, but I ask myself if it would enable me to know what supposed biological warfare substance can or cannot do?

The one mistake we always make when making assesments of danger, is that we base it on yesterdays official knowledge , whereas todays weapon is based on classified discoveries.

Let's hope there is nothing to fear from our skies.

Anybody out there with an open mind, and knowledge to share?


Sincerely

Cade

[edit on 6-2-2005 by Cade]




posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
”I must say this is the first time I have ever met anyone who felt they knew better than myself what I have investigated and what I have not. Is it arrogance, psychic abillity or perhaps simply a wild guess? and even more intriguing, is this how you acheive your conclusions on the subjectmatters you investigate too?”

None of the above. It was based on what I read -- or, in your case, didn’t read. If you have done any serious research on “chem-trails”, I invite you to share it with us.

In forums like this we can either ask politely with respect or we can assume and judge beforehand. Whatever we choose lends credit to how we ourselves are being judged by the readers. I'm sure I myself have smiled with spinach between my teeth from time to time


If you have not done any research, I invite you to start.

Well, thank you. That's fair. I don't label sites conspiracy this or conspiracy that before I know what they are trying to say. I find it utterly insulting to intelligence as a whole, to use "conspiracy sites" as an arguement to miscredit the substance of their content.

It's been my experience that most people have very little idea what the word means to begin with.



I assume you’re talking about some of the stuff from Carnicom’s 2001 and 2002 posts. If such is the case, I suggest that you question several basic facts that seem to be overlooked in many of these “collections”, including the fact that they were found on the ground, so there is no evidence at all that they came from the air (never mind from “chem-trails”). You might also want to find the name of the independent laboratory that did the studies on the “red blood cells”, and the chain of custody that is required for any serious research collection.

Wouldn't the fist order of business be to determine wether or not the substance is sinister or not. If it is, should it be proven that it came from the chemtrails / contrails or should it be proven that it did not come from the sky? Who has to produce the proof?

Is the legal spacing for contrails 3 miles?


If you’re looking at the Therese Aigner “study”, I would be more than happy to point out all the flaws in it just like I did in 2002. This, by the way, is why I am no longer welcome at some of the “chem-trail” “research” sites. It seems that “research” is good only if you agree with the “chem-trailers” pre-conceived notions.

Well I'm not sure who has the most preconceived notions and who does not. I certainly do not know your "chem-trail" opponents or the Therese Aigner "study" for that matter. I read the headlines for years about the chemtrails, but never bothered to study because I forgot along with so many others that "investigation comes before dismissal, and not the other way around". Frankly the whole thing just seemed a little bit out there, but now that I have seen what is going on in the US as a whole, I must say nothing get's ruled out anymore.


Regardless of where you got the information, though, I invite you to share it with us.

I will and thank you. Have you seen the William Thomas lechture on the subject?


Sincerely

Cade



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Cade says:

”In forums like this we can either ask politely with respect or we can assume and judge beforehand. Whatever we choose lends credit to how we ourselves are being judged by the readers. I'm sure I myself have smiled with spinach between my teeth from time to time”

Well put, indeed; my face is red and deservedly so.

” I find it utterly insulting to intelligence as a whole, to use "conspiracy sites" as an arguement to miscredit the substance of their content.”

I am sorry you are insulted; my comments about conspiracy sites were certainly not meant as an insult. However, I believe most conspiracy sites (excluding, thank God, this one), are merely a collection of assertions that have no data to back them up. Furthermore, on many of these cases (including most of the “chem-trail” sites), the unwritten agreement seems to be “I won’t fault or question any of your assertions, if you don’t fault or question mine.”

regarding questionable collection practices: ”Wouldn't the fist order of business be to determine wether or not the substance is sinister or not.”

If you choose to determine whether something on the ground is hazardous or not, there is certainly nothing wrong with that. But, if you don’t have at least some sort of evidence that it might have come from the sky, it might be an exercise in futility.

"If it is, should it be proven that it came from the chemtrails / contrails or should it be proven that it did not come from the sky?”

There needs to be pretty good evidence that whatever you’re seeing is airborne; that’s for sure. In one case, Carnicom et.al. made a big deal about red blood cells being found in a sample in the woods. My initial response (and, I think, the initial response of most objective observers) would be that the blood, being found in the wood, probably came from an animal, because there are a lot of animals in the wood and they usually die there.

”Who has to produce the proof?”

The people who make an assertion are usually expected to come up with the evidence. If I were to tell you you that the mushrooms in my front lawn were placed there by the Little Fairies of the Moonlight, you would probably expect me to give you some reason why I thought so, and might take exception if I were to say to you, ”…Cade, it’s up to you to prove that the mushrooms were not placed there by the LFOTM.”

”Is the legal spacing for contrails 3 miles?”

I assume you mean separation of aircraft in flight. There are three separation indices: vertical, following, and horizontal. Vertical separation was 2000 feet until jan 20, 3005, at which point it was reduced to 1000 feet. This was considered safe, because approach avoidance algorithms are a lot better, as are the aircraft radar, including Doppler Radar. I found this information just now at www.faa.gov... , after Googling with “FAA aircraft in flight separation” as my Boolean arguments.

Following spacing, resulting from the Airbus crash a few days after the terror attacks in 2001, depend on the size of the following aircraft and of the leading jet, since aircraft turbulence and its effects are driven by the size of the two aircraft. In most cases it is either 4 or 5 miles. However, this doesn’t have much to do with contrails, because most following would be either too low for there to be contrails (e.g., on approach or takeoff); or, if they were at an altitude of ~10000 meters, the two contrails would merge to form only one anyway. ( www.nas.nasa.gov... ).

Horizontal spacing will remain at five miles, per the FAA ( tokyo.usembassy.gov... ). However, if one aircraft is flying at 35,000 feet altitude and another at 36,000 feet, you or I, on the ground with no depth cues, would have no possible way of determining which is the higher of the two.

"investigation comes before dismissal, and not the other way around"

True, and the fact that the “chem-trail” believers have never mounted a serious investigation – at least not to my knowledge, and I’ve been following this for five years now -- is one of the things that frustrates scientists and engineers.

We’re not saying that, ” it’s bogus, so don’t bother to investigate…”, but rather ”… if it’s not bogus, why aren’t you investigating?’.

”I will and thank you. Have you seen the William Thomas lechture on the subject?”

No, but I’ve read a lot of his stuff. Thomas is a good writer – his articles on sailing, which used to be a hobby of mine, are great – but his articles on “chem-tails’ are all conjecture. It seems that every witness or source he mentions “prefers to remain anonymous” or “cannot give out their identity for fear of government reprisal”, which means that we’re expected to take his word when every scientist and engineer and aviation professional says that the contrails are normal.

I don’t think so!

Thomas lost a lot of credibility when he said, back in 2000, that by 2002 he would personally blow the cover off the “chem-trail” plot (and never did).


[edit on 7-2-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   
seriously none of you KNOW if chemtrails are real or not

but as arrogant ignorant humans always do
we take sides and argue all day and night about how we are so "IN THE KNOW" about all this

its amazing becuase None of you KNOW

how many of you have the highest possible military security clearance??
NONE probably!

so why dont you say "what if" instead of acting like you know everything
everyone seems to be acting like little kids crying on the playground

both sides of this arguement need to shut it for a minute and just be skeptical and say What IF either way

until someone with the highest possible security clearance appears and tells us the entire truth
we will NOT KNOW either WAY



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Muzzleflash,

No one is saying that there are no top secret programs researching weather modification. I'm sure that there is ongoing research into that field. More importantly I'm sure that there is much much more active research into basic understanding of the mechanics of weather and atmospheric processes. You can't modify what you don't understand and our current understanding of climate processes isn't even good enough for consistently accurate forecasting, let alone modification.

What you have to understand, however is that there is a HUGE difference between a that and the ordinary, everyday phenomena of persistent contrails. By far the vast majority of the airplanes overhead are ordinary commercial air traffic. These are what are forming the persistent contrails that the chemtrail folks are talking about.

You can verify this yourself with the aid of the Flight Explorer program if you wish.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cade

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So, Who'd you buy the video from, Cliff Carnicom or Will Thomas, and how much did it cost you?

Oh, and BTW, as for the "dried blood cells" bit. Do yourself a favor and read up on eletctrolytes and osmatic pressure in human cells before you buy into that B.S.

[edit on 5-2-2005 by HowardRoark]


What do you think folks, is he saying in subtle words that I was an idiot for paying my way to more knowledge, or does he want to pick up the tab?


The former.



But I did notice there was no "conspiracy" rhetoric this time.

I have absolutely no idea what "eletctrolytes and osmatic pressure in human cells" are, but I ask myself if it would enable me to know what supposed biological warfare substance can or cannot do?



Well it goes back to some of Cliffies early experiments.
www.carnicom.com...

It helps to understand what it is you are looking for before you go looking for it.



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Off_The_Street
 


Hello agian. Long time. There's been new development in Chemtrail debates:
uk.youtube.com...

What do you think?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join