Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Chemtrails / EM

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
Well, I watched a science discovery channel program on weather modification and they said that they were going to lay down contrails in grid like patterns to decrease the the effects of gloabal warming.

Sounds like chemtrials to me


Really?
What chemicals are being sprayed in those contrails?
I believe that is a big part of the issue with the Chemtrail crowd is that the contrails persist because they are full of fibers, aluminum powder, and even some believe a blood like substance, that they cause respiratory effects, and so on…

Now how is that the same as laying down a grid pattern of normal contrails to measure its effects on the atmosphere.




posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Weather Modification is real and has been going on, as far as I can tell, since the 1920's. I believe that the chemtrail activity withnessed by thousands of people world wide is part of that program although there may be more insidious evil behind the spew.

www.license.state.tx.us...

The spraying program being done in West Texas is having a profound effect on East Texas. (IMHO) Drought conditions in East Texas are severe and the piney forests are drying up and dying.

Finding information on the chemicals used in weather modification is difficult, at best. They admit to silver iodide in cloud seeding projects. Independant analysis has reported aluminum and barium as well as some very nasty bacteria and molds.

educate-yourself.org...

www.lightwatcher.com...

Chemtrails, harmful radiation, microwaves, HARRP, etc., can all be defeated with orgone energy. Yes I know, it sounds crazy. I had a hard time believing it myself, but I do, and will not argue my beliefs

educate-yourself.org...

If some of these links have been posted elsewhere please accept my apologies for being redundent. I'm new here and there is an awful lot of information on these boards. The links I provided are merely a starting point. I did read the entire thread, over several cups of coffee, although I tended to just skim the chest pounding posts.


Only YOU can decide if chemtrails and orgone are real. Research the subjects, keep your eyes on the skies, and listen to your heart.



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cece
Independant analysis has reported aluminum and barium as well as some very nasty bacteria and molds.



Please provide some verification on this so called "Independant analysis."

A link would be nice.

anything to support this claim



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   

The spraying program being done in West Texas is having a profound effect on East Texas. (IMHO) Drought conditions in East Texas are severe and the piney forests are drying up and dying.


That’s odd. The link you gave was for a program to increase rain, not decrease it. And, while we’re on the subject of cloud seeding, what do contrails at 30,000 feet have to do with seeding clouds? I thought “chem-trails” were usually reported in clear skies!


Finding information on the chemicals used in weather modification is difficult, at best. They admit to silver iodide in cloud seeding projects. Independent analysis has reported aluminum and barium as well as some very nasty bacteria and molds.


Au contraire; the “independent analyses” I assume you’re talking about was probably the Therèse Aigner hoax, which has been debunked many times. Aigner’s stuff, like just about everything found on Cliff Carneycon’s site, is chock-full of holes. For example, Aigner never said who did the tests, nor did she say under what conditions the tests were performed. Most of these so-called “samples” were just snow or water collected in a bucket. There was nothing to tie them to contrails; far more likely is that they were either forest mulch (or, in the case of barium) normal pollution from rain. Remember that barium compounds are a very common and plentiful pollutant byproduct of coal-fired electrical generating plants.

If, on the other hand, you are referring to an independent study other than Aigner's, I'd agree with our colleague Mr. Roark that a citation would be good.


Chemtrails, harmful radiation, microwaves, HARRP, etc., can all be defeated with orgone energy. Yes I know, it sounds crazy. I had a hard time believing it myself, but I do, and will not argue my beliefs


I agree with you there, it certainly sounds crazy, and I think you’re wise indeed not to argue your beliefs on such. However, if you have an opinion which you want to share here, you might want to be prepared for skeptical review and comment.

Of course, we do have some ‘chem-trail’ believers here; this is, after all, a conspiracy board! But it is not a board like ‘Chemtrail Central’ or Carneycon’s board or any of the others, where anyone who is skeptical is insulted or banned outright. One of the things that makes this such a great place is the everyone is free to trumpet his or her own beliefs and theories -- and just as free to disagree with them.


If some of these links have been posted elsewhere please accept my apologies for being redundent. I'm new here and there is an awful lot of information on these boards.


There certainly is, and that’s another thing which makes it so good. You can find a whole lot of information here, especially if you start at www.abovetopsecret.com... , which is an index of all the “chem-trail”-related articles and posts on ATS. I particularly would recommend the thread starting with “The Chemtrail Hoax” ( www.abovetopsecret.com... ). The original poster is a bit of a blowhard, but he did start off an interesting exchange of ideas. Warning: reading all the posts and responses might be bad for your blood pressure!



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
Well, I watched a science discovery channel program on weather modification and they said that they were going to lay down contrails in grid like patterns to decrease the the effects of gloabal warming.

Sounds like chemtrials to me


Really?
What chemicals are being sprayed in those contrails?
I believe that is a big part of the issue with the Chemtrail crowd is that the contrails persist because they are full of fibers, aluminum powder, and even some believe a blood like substance, that they cause respiratory effects, and so on…

Now how is that the same as laying down a grid pattern of normal contrails to measure its effects on the atmosphere.


I really have no clue, I don't know the chemical make-up for chemicals to make it rain or help stop the process of global warming.
The program had people from the U.S government, not just some people off the street.



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Increasing rain in one area, results in the DECREASE of rain in the areas that follow.

This is the case in Texas. (AGAIN IMHO) If clouds are seeded in West Texas to benefit Agribusiness.....what is left for East Texas? I wish to hell I had some sort of link to provide you with the FACTS you need to think outside the box. All I have is personal experience and speculation from living in the areas effected.

Weather moves from west to east where I live. Yes there are abnormalities and exceptions to this.. We call them NorthEastners here. But it still doesn't explain why my Dad has had 3 inches of rain in over a years time in an area used to much more. The loss of the Piney East Texas Forests will be a boon for Home Depot. A crime for the rest of us.

If this is a forum where opinions are frowned upon I definately registered in mistake. Quoting internet sources as proof does not mean factual information. Just because you say one source is "bad" does not make it so.

I rely on my senses first. If I see it, smell it, and am physically effected by it, it is real to me.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cece
If this is a forum where opinions are frowned upon I definately registered in mistake.


Dont be put off, there are a few around who appear to me to be troll types, who will attempt to debunk everything they think they can and contribute very little positive. But only a few.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cece
If this is a forum where opinions are frowned upon I definately registered in mistake. Quoting internet sources as proof does not mean factual information. Just because you say one source is "bad" does not make it so.

I rely on my senses first. If I see it, smell it, and am physically effected by it, it is real to me.


When dealing with matters of science, established scientific principles trumps opinion every time.

Cliff Carniscam's web pages with his so-called proof are so flawed and ludicrous that anyone with the slightest background in science will burst out laughing when reading them.

I rely on my mind first, because while the senses can be easily fooled, a well trained mind is much rarely so.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   
cece says:


Increasing rain in one area, results in the DECREASE of rain in the areas that follow.


If you can actually show some correlation that cloud-seeding is causing a shortage or rainfall somewhere else, I would be happy to look at it.


I wish to hell I had some sort of link to provide you with the FACTS you need to think outside the box.


I wish you did, too. Like my colleague Mr. Roark, I like facts.


All I have is personal experience and speculation from living in the areas effected.


Personal experience, I assume, means that you have seen drought. I live in Arizona; I see drought, too. But I don't see any evidence that there is some sort of correlation between cloud seeding here and drought there. Now don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that there isn't a correlation. But until I see evidence (and "speculation" is not evidence), I will continue to be skeptical.


Weather moves from west to east where I live. Yes there are abnormalities and exceptions to this.. We call them NorthEastners here. But it still doesn't explain why my Dad has had 3 inches of rain in over a years time in an area used to much more.


No it doesn't. What caused your father's property to have less rain could be a lot of things. It might be seasonal abnormalities, or a part of a much more long-term epicycle. It could be caused by global warming, either man-induced or natural, in some mechanism we don't know about. I don't know that the problem is, your father doesn't, the meteorologists don't -- and neither do you. I think it's irresponsible science to blame a problem you don't understand on a cause if you don't have any evidence for that causality.


The loss of the Piney East Texas Forests will be a boon for Home Depot. A crime for the rest of us.


I agree; the lost of the Piney Woods is a tragedy, but if it destroys your ecology and agriculture, then everyone, including Home Depot, is going to suffer.


If this is a forum where opinions are frowned upon I definately registered in mistake. Quoting internet sources as proof does not mean factual information. Just because you say one source is "bad" does not make it so.


If this were a forum where unpopular opinions were frowned upon, I would've been banned long ago. What this forum is, though , is a place where if someone makes an assertion, that assertion will not be accepted as gospel by everyone. Skeptics will ask for evidence for your assertions, and if you don't have any, will not consider your assertions as valid.

Accepting every hypothesis and/or assertion because someone says so is not denying ignorance, it is perpetuating it.


I rely on my senses first. If I see it, smell it, and am physically effected by it, it is real to me.


I agree with Brother Roark in his response to that. Senses can be -- and are -- fooled all the time; a skeptical mind is a bit less amenable to such mix-ups.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   
OTS, why do you spend so much time trying to dbunk the chemtrail issue and not whole lot else lately? Please try and not be such a cheerleader for Roark. I mean come on, colleague, brother Roark, whats up with you two?

You talk about doing tests and scientific study, thats impossible when the same government that does this is also mostly responcible for the countries infrastructure and any high dollar studies. So unless some very wealthy philanthropist comes forward and pumps a few million into the mess we will never know.

Just look at what a mess the sky is. Dont tell me its because of increased airtraffic, that didnt happen in just one day in 1999, the chemclouds have a very distinct look to them. I cannot tell you the logistics, I do know when something is different though. Maybe its not even the governement. Maybe aliens for all I know and the government is powerless, clueless and can only cover there incompetance.

I do know one thing though, you and Roark give me the creeps.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
the chemclouds have a very distinct look to them.


So distinctive that thousands of trained meteorological observers and hundreds of thousands of amateur weather watchers, can't tell them from normal contrails and naturally occurring cirrus........


Why is it that the only people who can see these things, and are convinced of their existance, are people with little or no knowledge of meteorology? Why is it that the one group of people - scattered to every corner of the globe - who should be able to identify chemtrails for what they are, are vitually unanimous in saying they don't exist?



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
LoneGunMan says:


OTS, why do you spend so much time trying to dbunk the chemtrail issue and not whole lot else lately?


Because the “chem-trail” business is nothing but a sleazy hoax, where a few people like Carnicom and Rense tell lies and the bulk of believers, who are basically nice folks but ignorant of engineering, meteorology, etc. buy into their hoax.

And if you want to know WHY I fight the “chem-trail” hoax and what my background is for doing so, I propose you look at my profile ( www.abovetopsecret.com...
) and review my post at ( www.abovetopsecret.com... ). That post, by the way, was written long before you joined ATS.


Please try and not be such a cheerleader for Roark. I mean come on, colleague, brother Roark, whats up with you two?


There are a number of people here with whom I have corresponded, and whom, because of their knowledge and courteous demeanor, I admire very much. Mr. Roark -- along with Messrs. Nygdan, Cmdrkeenkid, Duke, Essan, Deus, Philpott, Amuk, and especially Ms Byrd -- are examples of such people. I will continue to cheer their accomplishments and knowledge; you, of course, may cheer for whomever you choose.


You talk about doing tests and scientific study, thats impossible when the same government that does this is also mostly responcible for the countries infrastructure and any high dollar studies. So unless some very wealthy philanthropist comes forward and pumps a few million into the mess we will never know.


Rubbish!

It would not require a “few million” dollars to charter an airplane and sample these so-called “chem-trails”, then to analyze them and disseminate the results. It would not be expensive to use a simple program like Flight Explorer ( www.flightexplorer.com... ) to correlate your “chem-trails” with the altitude, vector, point of origin, destination, operator aircraft type, and even tail number of 99 percent of the aircraft you see in the skies. It would not be expensive at all to set up a study to count “chem-trails”, review public data from hospitals and clinics to determine if there were a statistically-significant correlation between ‘chem-trails” and any sort of anomalous sickness.

The reason these studies haven’t been done is two-fold: The people who propound the hoax don’t want to do so because they know that their lies will be exposed, and the well-meaning people who buy into the hoax, simply don’t have the skills and ability to set up a serious study…

… or aren’t really interested enough in finding out the truth, preferring to quack their beliefs without any evidence whatsoever.

Which one of those people identify YOU?

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Mein Got. I tried to stay out of it but they eventually pull you back in.


Originally posted by LoneGunMan
OTS, why do you spend so much time trying to dbunk the chemtrail issue and not whole lot else lately? Please try and not be such a cheerleader for Roark. I mean come on, colleague, brother Roark, whats up with you two?

I think it would be speculation as to what else they get up to. I can't imagine they spend the majority of their time debunking "chemtrails".



So unless some very wealthy philanthropist comes forward and pumps a few million into the mess we will never know.

I think it would take more than someone who is wealthy. I think they would have to literally have more money than sense.



Just look at what a mess the sky is.

Gorgeous winter evening I'm looking at here in London - quite a few contrails as well - they look nice as the sun sets.



Dont tell me its because of increased airtraffic....

OK, we won't. But it is.



...that didnt happen in just one day in 1999

What didn't exactly?



, the chemclouds have a very distinct look to them.

What ways do they look different from contrails?



I cannot tell you the logistics, I do know when something is different though. Maybe its not even the governement.

Have you thought that it might be your state of mind that is different??



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Dont tell me its because of increased airtraffic, that didnt happen in just one day in 1999,




I love this graphic.

With the execption of the slowdown following 911, Ait traffic has grown exponentially over the past decade.

Are you trying to say that there were NO persistent contrails prior to 1999?



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
i dont have the charts, but can tell you from an air traffic standpoint that we are definitely back to, and actually slightly above, pre-9/11 traffic numbers.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Always the same crew that comes here trying to debunk the chemtrail phenomenon. I really do not want to waste my time in a debate that cannot be won. I would like to state that I am one that has never followed the crowd and my opinions are mine and not because of what I had read somewhere about chemtrails.

I learned about chemtrails not from the Internet or anyone else. I am an avid aviation enthusiast and am always looking to the sky for interesting aircraft, been doing it since I can remember. I have seen every type of contrail, in every weather situation that they are able to form. One summer in July of 1999 I was working as a car-salesman on a car lot that is on a high hill with a wonderful vista of the sky. I was feeling really good that day for I had made quite a bit of money selling cars. I parked a car, got out and looked up into the sky. I will never forget the feeling. The sky at the western horizon was filled with the strangest looking (contrails) I thought to myself what the ****! I had NEVER seen anything like it. They were not in normal jet traffic positions and were right next to each other. They were so thick, so opaque, and so un-natural, I looked for at least five to ten minutes trying to figure out what was going on. My mood instantly went from elation to a feeling of dread.

It took a few years before I had seen articles about chemtrails. When I saw some real chemtrail pictures I had instant recall to that day, I have been trying to figure out this crazy thing ever since.

Thats my experience and I'm going to tell you right here, I have seen in my lifetime, I will bet more gruesome horrific and strange things than anyone here that wants to debunk the chemtrail thing. My point of view is always sceptical, if not slightly jaded. So to elude that I am gullible is a statement made by someone that has no idea who I am. I have seen things that when at times my whole platoon needs to be debriefed by professionals.

I dont jump to conclusions from something I have read about, by someone that may or may not have any credibility. I dont need an "expert" to tell me when something very basic has changed. I think most of the chemtrail debunkers are sincere. You may never have experienced a real chemtrail sighting. I have, and I know when something out of the ordinary is happening, and dont need someone from Fox news to explain it to me.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Mein Got. I tried to stay out of it but they eventually pull you back in.


Originally posted by LoneGunMan
OTS, why do you spend so much time trying to dbunk the chemtrail issue and not whole lot else lately? Please try and not be such a cheerleader for Roark. I mean come on, colleague, brother Roark, whats up with you two?

I think it would be speculation as to what else they get up to. I can't imagine they spend the majority of their time debunking "chemtrails".



So unless some very wealthy philanthropist comes forward and pumps a few million into the mess we will never know.

I think it would take more than someone who is wealthy. I think they would have to literally have more money than sense.



Just look at what a mess the sky is.

Gorgeous winter evening I'm looking at here in London - quite a few contrails as well - they look nice as the sun sets.



Dont tell me its because of increased airtraffic....

OK, we won't. But it is.



...that didnt happen in just one day in 1999

What didn't exactly?



, the chemclouds have a very distinct look to them.

What ways do they look different from contrails?



I cannot tell you the logistics, I do know when something is different though. Maybe its not even the governement.

Have you thought that it might be your state of mind that is different??


Look at the time this strange person put into this post. Then asks me if I ever though it was my state of mind that was different!



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I'm with you LoneGunMan!

These people that Off The Street keeps bringing up and de-bunking, like Carnicom I don't even know of. I've never even read there stuff. Maybe linked their web site if it was relavant. But I don't follow any one person or what their beliefs are. OTS seems to think he knows how we think, what we think, and how we should think. It's all so black and white isn't it?

My belief comes from personal experience, what I witnessed, which I won't bother repeating. You have all read it before...

But you can't ignore the amount of people who do believe chemtrails are real, and not just Carnicom or Rense (another site I don't go to)...
If it's such a wild hoax why do I keep hearing about it everywhere?
Usualy when something is proved to be a hoax it dies pretty quick in the mainstream. The profit Yahweh and his UFO's for example.

Non of the de-bunkers can prove chemtrails are a hoax, constantly telling us how contrails are formed doesn't prove anything....That to me is closed minded ignorance.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Non of the de-bunkers can prove chemtrails are a hoax, constantly telling us how contrails are formed doesn't prove anything....That to me is closed minded ignorance.


And none of the believers in chemtrails can prove they exist.

Showing pictures of aircraft producing contrails, or of sheets of cirrostratus forming ahead of a weather front, simply demonstrates their ignorance of basic meteorology.....



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Look at the time this strange person put into this post. Then asks me if I ever though it was my state of mind that was different!

I don't know how quickly you type LGM, but I'm pretty fast. That post took me 3 mins to knock together - I only typed about 6 or 7 lines. Maybe it takes you a few hours to put something like together, I don't know.

And this is always how it ends up isn't it? OTS, Howard et al provide scientific evidence, dissect arguments and apply critical thinking. You can just say "I've seen strange things in the sky", like that represents some kind of cogent theory. Then, without fail, you run out of anything to add on the subject and just resort to name calling - this time referring to me as "strange" - which I must say is rich coming from you.

Have you got any evidence that the contrails we see in the sky every day are in fact full of noxious chemicals and that there is some kind of giant ongoing conspiricy?






top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join