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.

 

Report Chemtrails.

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by 7Ayreon
Tell me, fellow people who believe chemtrails are simply contrails:

3) Why do they rarely occur out away from citys? Don't say they're landing there, because they aren't.


I've only ever seen them over rural areas. Some of the biggest were over Dartmoor - one of the remotest areas in England ....




posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
Can you say, "Agenda"?
[edit on 24-10-2006 by Affirmative Reaction]


You dont' post on ats for like 1 year or more and then all of a suddent you start to post only in chemtrail threads and all you do is insult and redicule those who are open to the posssibility of chemtrails.



can YOU say agenda?


Look here, I've just about had it with your posts as they are directed at me. You seem to think that everything you post is the gospel truth and no one should have the audacity to call you on it, regardless of its source. Sorry, that just isn't going to happen. I'm tired of your crying and whining and claims that I "insult and ridicule" everyone. Not even close. About the only post that could even remotely be considered such is where I asked you what grade you were in, and the reason for that is that my students have been reading some of what I post and told me to ask you. They are guessing 9th or 10th. As a matter of fact, you have done nothing lately but comment on my posts. Are you stalking me? That, I believe, is against board policy! If I am so bad, why haven't I been warned? You whined in another thread that I and others had "ruined your thread by discussing it", and were told by the mods that there was nothing wrong with the posts.

Actually, I have been given applause recently for my posts in these threads. Have you?

I post here now because I choose to and have a little extra time on my hands during my school day. My planning period and lunch butt up against each other and I get a little bored sometimes after my class prep is done, but you know what? It's NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS why I post, got it? I don't ask you why you are posting the stuff you do when it's all been posted a million times before, do I?

Now, if you want to continue to post you go right ahead. But don't even THINK about lecturing ME again, got it? If you were to post something well thought out that could be discussed intelligently instead of simply following me around and trashing me in an attempt to discredit me, you might get the attention you are looking for, but until that happens, get off my stones, got it?

Into the iggy box with you.

If I have offended anyone except the person this is directed to, I humbly apologize. I simply will not be chastised by someone who comes to a battle of wits unarmed...



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by Fiverz
Note I am not saying that chemtrails do not exist. But there needs to be more research done in a scientific manner before I am willing to believe random peoples' pictures and accounts



www.google.ca...


Ok checked out the first hit (which was pretty well done) and I'll check out the rest in a bit.

Maybe it's the perception of sites like rense that just present pictures on blind faith without any type of research that cloud this issue. Will get back to this thread after reading some.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   
First of all why are people even posting here if they havent seen the dozens of threads on ATS and hundreds of sites on the web about this subject? There is tons of evidence of all kinds and I dont think that believers continually need to be challenged on that.

The only legit arguement that critics can make is the scientific one and the lack of a smoking gun. But more and more scientific research is being done and soon that wont be an issue either. Now we are awaiting more insiders to come forth and spill the beans so that this scam can be revealed for what it is.

Now back to spotting chemtrails, I have to say that Ive seen less of the sprayers in my area lately but the weather has been more overcast with more rain and maybe Im just not seeing them up above. Planes are often visible on nice clear sunny days or just before rainstorms so that the chemicals can be dispersed with the rain.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
First of all why are people even posting here if they havent seen the dozens of threads on ATS and hundreds of sites on the web about this subject? There is tons of evidence of all kinds and I dont think that believers continually need to be challenged on that.

The only legit arguement that critics can make is the scientific one and the lack of a smoking gun. But more and more scientific research is being done and soon that wont be an issue either. Now we are awaiting more insiders to come forth and spill the beans so that this scam can be revealed for what it is.
.


I agree with you about reading previous threads...that's one bone of contention I have with certain posters. They constantly rehash the same old stuff without reading what has been previously posted as if they are coming up with something totally new!

Tons of evidence? Where? I have yet to see one verifiable shred of evidence posted here or anywhere else on the web that supports the existence of "chemtrails". Contrails, yes. Natural phenomenon. You can see it, photograph it, even measure it and what it is made of. Science supports the existence of contrails 100%. In my previous career I saw them every day, even created them. "Chemtrails" have 0% support in science.

Where is this scientific research? I have been asking for just one link to something verifiable and all I get is "chemtrail central and Rense". Sorry, but a conspiracy site is not a verifiable source. That would be like saying this thread is positive proof that "chemtrails" exist....



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fiverz
Ok checked out the first hit (which was pretty well done) and I'll check out the rest in a bit.

Maybe it's the perception of sites like rense that just present pictures on blind faith without any type of research that cloud this issue. Will get back to this thread after reading some.


Ok I checked out all the information on www.chemtrailcentral.com...

Good stuff but there are some problems. First of all, the only conclusion drawn is that there were some unidentifiable craft that were leaving contrails that existed longer than other ones. These craft had no observable altitude, temperature, or wind pattern information so there is no way to know what the atmospheric conditions were for those 8 contrails (even if they appeared at the same TIME as other contrails). In fact the first chart shows that for all contrails left by craft that had observable tracking/atmospheric info via Flight Explorer, only 1 in the entire time period surpassed 120 seconds of existence. The rest of the scientific process was pretty well done, although there is some confusion between the third chart (which shows persistent trails on most days) with the two previous charts (one that shows the Flight Explorer details, and the next that shows the unidentifiable craft details). For example, the third "day by day" chart shows "persistent trails" on 11/13, 11/14, 11/22, etc. without corresponding entries on the other two charts. This information is then compiled into the data below that states there were observable trails on 60% of days with observable skies. Where did those extra dates come from? Note this is not an argument for or against chemtrails, just a critique of this individual's testing methods.

The thing that intrigues me the most is the unidentifiable craft. If we can see a trend that aircraft with no trackable flight data are consistently leaving trails that are observable for hours then we have something strange going on.

Again though, the research presented there merely shows that there are some trails that last longer than others. There is no testing of the supposed chemical nature of the trails. However it is a good start ... this needs to be repeated in many cities over many days in order to get a clearer picture of any correlation. Maybe then we can pry into the unidentifiable flights and see what's going on there.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
Can you say, "Agenda"?
[edit on 24-10-2006 by Affirmative Reaction]


You dont' post on ats for like 1 year or more and then all of a suddent you start to post only in chemtrail threads and all you do is insult and redicule those who are open to the posssibility of chemtrails.



can YOU say agenda?


Look here, I've just about had it with your posts as they are directed at me



After reading this first phrase i did not bother to read the rest of what you said because my reply to what you say is directed at you was from a quote that was directed at me so you do the math.

Im throught playing your childish games, im not even reading your posts anymore, consdier me none existent in your reality please because you're just someone who comes on here to insult me and everyone who wants the truth to come out. your agenda is crystal clear to me now 100%, you don't come on here for a long long time and all of a suddent you are all over chemtrail threads and literally just insulting people who's motives are for the health of our race. well that disgusts me period.

So there is really no point in reading your posts other then to argue and im done with this childish arguing.

Consider your self ignored because i got no time to read your jiberish.

Good bye forever Afermative Agenda.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fiverz

Again though, the research presented there merely shows that there are some trails that last longer than others. There is no testing of the supposed chemical nature of the trails. However it is a good start ... this needs to be repeated in many cities over many days in order to get a clearer picture of any correlation. Maybe then we can pry into the unidentifiable flights and see what's going on there.



Alright, ill try to find an analysis of the chemtrails substance.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Affirmative Reaction wrote I read your link and all I see is a story by a local news carrier based solely on the story of some guy who wants to be compensated for something he claims happened years ago. The article mentions "government records". Where are they? Where are the links to the verifiable information?

Sorry, I don't see anything that would convince me in this story or in your post. I certainly don't see anything that would convince me that this is what "chemtrails" are, not in the least.

Hard evidence. Links to the phantom gov docs. You can make all the claims you like, but this still is nothing but an unsubstantiated story told by one man without any evidence except his word.

And again I say, WHAT government documents? Where are they? Why are they not included in the story? Why are there no links to these documents? Again and again all you do is ask us to believe you because you say it's so, or some story you point to says it's so, but there IS NO PROOF!!!!

Is it so hard to understand that your "word" that something exists just isn't good enough?

Unbelievable......


While the following link does not contain the actual Government documents, it does take you to an online report, produced by a National Academy of Sciences Sub-Committe, which investigated these public area experiments.

Affirmative Reaction, this should provide you with the proof you seek; proof that the US Government, and the other members of the Tripartite Agreement on Toxicological Warfare - the UK and Canadian Governments, exposed their citizens to the effects of massive aerosols of BW simulants (simulants used during these experiments included live bacteria and toxic chemical compounds such as Zinc Cadmium sulphide)>

Toxicologic Assessment of the Army's Zinc Cadmium Sulfide Dispersion Tests (1997)

Btw, they were Biological Warfare field trials, not Chemical Warfare trials. Reporters become confused because a chemical compound - Zinc Cadmium sulphide - was used to simulate Biological Warfare agents.

The following links give the NAS overview of the reason for the conduct of the experiments, and the method of selection of the test cities. Amongst the cities whose residents were exposed to the toxic material - Cadmium sulphide - were: Minneapolis, St. Louis, and Winnipeg

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SELECTION OF TEST CITIES AND OTHER TEST SITES
To accomplish the Army's goal of estimating munitions requirements for the strategic use of BW agents against cities, the researchers considered as test areas North American metropolitan areas that most closely matched the meteorologic, terrain, population, and physical characteristics of the Soviet cities of interest, such as Moscow and Leningrad (Stanford University 1952, pp. 32-37). For winter conditions, it became apparent that the upper Mississippi Valley and adjacent areas presented the best possibility of matching some climatic characteristics and bracketing others. In this general geographic region, the following cities were considered: Oklahoma City, Kansas City, Omaha, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Chicago, Minneapolis, and Winnipeg. Of those, St. Louis and Minneapolis appeared to bracket the range of climatic values of interest to the best advantage (Stanford University 1952). The broad topographic requirement to be met was that of flat to rolling country at elevations generally below 1,000 ft above sea level. St. Louis and Minneapolis qualified in those respects. They are on one or more rivers—another desired feature.

In summer, that general area has considerably more precipitation than the Soviet area of interest. However, areas in North America with substantially the same precipitation as that in the Soviet area of interest were disqualified from further consideration if their terrain was mountainous, they were too high above sea level, or their rainfall was of a peculiar coastal nature (Stanford University 1952). To qualify as a site for summer tests, a city had to have cloudy and clear days and rainy and dry days within specified ranges of temperature and windiness. St. Louis and Winnipeg met the desired summer temperature range, and in other respects they also qualified as summer-test cities (Stanford University 1952).

Population was an additional consideration used in the decision to test in Minneapolis, St. Louis, and Winnipeg. The Stanford University (1952) study noted that "of the 82 Russian cities whose populations are greater than 100,000, only two have populations exceeding 1,000,000" (Stanford University 1952, p. 34). Minneapolis, St. Louis, and Winnipeg fit within that range, with populations of 500,000, 800,000, and 250,000, respectively (Stanford University 1952, p. 34). Population density is also an important factor, but this information was not available on the Soviet cities....

....The presence of universities in Minneapolis, St. Louis, and Winnipeg was yet another advantage in that the universities provided an "ample pool of qualified personnel" to assist with field testing and data reduction (Stanford University 1952, pp. 40, 73). In Minneapolis, researchers also believed that the University of Minnesota laboratories might prove useful if the need arose (Stanford University 1952, p. 73); a substantial number of part-time personnel from the University of Minnesota were employed (Stanford University 1952, p. 34).

The cooperation of local officials and the local staffs of the U.S. Weather Bureau was important (Stanford University 1952, p. 40). Cooperation of the police departments and air-pollution control officers was enlisted to avoid problems with local officials in connection with the operations. To avoid disclosing the exact nature and purpose of the operations, a cover story was devised: city officials were told that the work was to obtain data pertinent to smoke screening of cities to prevent aerial observation (Stanford University 1952, p. 76).

newton.nap.edu...

newton.nap.edu...

newton.nap.edu...

newton.nap.edu...

newton.nap.edu...


zero lift :

[edit on 25-10-2006 by zero lift]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
www.proliberty.com...


I dunno how to verify this source though so ill keep looking for something more concrete.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Thanks Zero Lift for validating the Context.

[edit on 25-10-2006 by selfless]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Who in their right mind would think this is a contrail?...





posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Thanks selfless.

We can't have people remaining ignorant of their countries past BW exploits.


Personally, although this type of experiment probably still goes on, I don't think that it has much to do with chemtrails. But it does prove that Government scientists will carry out potentially dangerous aerosol research in public areas.

As for the GAO CHAFF report, its highly likely that this is the one.

And if you want more, the GOA Report which investigated the Project 112/SHAD US CBW experiments, can be found here

The Project 112/SHAD report make particularly interesting reading, as it indicates that the DoD's disclosure of the 112/SHAD experiments were only the tip of the iceberg.

The GAO recommended that the DoD make a more thorough search for other public area experiments, this time starting from the 1940s - onwards.

The DoD agreed to this 2004 recommendation, and we're still waiting for the results of their endevours.



zero lift



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by zero lift


While the following link does not contain the actual Government documents, it does take you to an online report, produced by a National Academy of Sciences Sub-Committe, which investigated these public area experiments.

Affirmative Reaction, this should provide you with the proof you seek; proof that the US Government, and the other members of the Tripartite Agreement on Toxicological Warfare - the UK and Canadian Governments, exposed their citizens to the effects of massive aerosols of BW simulants (simulants used during these experiments included live bacteria and toxic chemical compounds such as Zinc Cadmium sulphide)>

Toxicologic Assessment of the Army's Zinc Cadmium Sulfide Dispersion Tests (1997)

Btw, they were Biological Warfare field trials, not Chemical Warfare trials. Reporters become confused because a chemical compound - Zinc Cadmium sulphide - was used to simulate Biological Warfare agents.



[edit on 25-10-2006 by zero lift]


Well FINALLY!!!! Something we can discuss!

Great find. But let’s take a look briefly at what this is. It's a "dispersal test" supposedly done many years ago to test the feasibility of using aircraft to spray biological contaminants on our enemies, not biological tests done on our populace. There is a HUGE difference! The compounds tested were used because they were thought to be harmless, and for the most part they were. It's not something that our government would do these days. Back in the 40's and 50's, we didn't have the amount of scientific data and data gathering capabilities that we have now. We didn't have computer modeling. When Roosevelt started all this, it also wasn't illegal. It is now, and for good reason. We don’t test stuff on prisoners today like we did back then for the same reasons. Things were done back then that would never be done today.

While this is a great find and has some very interesting information that I will defiantly study more, it still doesn't prove the existence of "chemtrails" today. Just that someone thought to test a delivery system a long time ago. The Germans, Brits, and Russians tested stuff like this as well, but as it just wasn't feasible, nobody ever used it in this form.

Sure would like to see some actual government docs related to this. I wonder if they actually exist.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by zero lift
Thanks selfless.

We can't have people remaining ignorant of their countries past BW exploits.


Personally, although this type of experiment probably still goes on, I don't think that it has much to do with chemtrails. But it does prove that Government scientists will carry out potentially dangerous aerosol research in public areas.

As for the GAO CHAFF report, its highly likely that this is the one.


zero lift


Again, not "BW exploits", dispersal testing...big, BIG difference....

What is the reference to chaff all about? Youy have a problem with the use of chaff???



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Zero Lift you seem to know a lot about official documents so you are good help in this thread.

The link you gave me is a pdf file? i can't read it i don't have the program to open it, only photo shop 7 and that doesn't work too good for these docs.

Oh and when i say chemtrails i only use the word for identifying the concept of whatever it is they are doing, it's just the term known for this type of activity.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I will say that pic is a contrail, I would bet every dollar I have on it too.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
First of all why are people even posting here if they havent seen the dozens of threads on ATS and hundreds of sites on the web about this subject?



Tons of evidence? Where? I have yet to see one verifiable shred of evidence posted here or anywhere else on the web that supports the existence of "chemtrails". Contrails, yes. Natural phenomenon. You can see it, photograph it, even measure it and what it is made of. Science supports the existence of contrails 100%. In my previous career I saw them every day, even created them. "Chemtrails" have 0% support in science.



You contradict yourself here. There is such a thing as Google (which I don't trust), or you can use www.scroogle.org to do a search. Let me know when you have done that and we can talk.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join