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.


Study Finds Chemtrails Are Seasonal

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 01:04 AM
So lets talk about this "study".. how would the op know what percentage of posts are based on observations.. and not just opinions..If a poster made an opinion on chemtrails and not an observation.. did you include this in your "study" or did you leave it out??

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 01:10 AM
reply to post by thefreepatriot

I think you would also need to show the locations of each of the posters as this is a global site. Just because its warm at my house doesn't mean its warm for another poster.

This is also to small of a sampling to show any concrete evidence. The graph could be shown with a much larger range and it would make the data not swing as wildly
. As with most study's done, who ever put the time and energy into doing them probably also has an interest in how the results turn out. Its a very glass half full or half empty type of scenario with such limited data.

Maybe expand your search to google?

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 04:19 AM

  • "The first set of geoengineering options screens incoming solar radiation with dust or soot in orbit about the earth or in the atmosphere. The second set changes cloud abundance by increasing cloud condensation nuclei through carefully controlled emissions of particulate matter."

reply to post by Phage


forward: For the past few years investigators and researchers have been searching for hard evidence on the elusive phenomena of chemtrail spraying. If one searches GoogleNews for articles on chemtrails in (with 4500 periodicals represented) not one article will be found. There is simply no coverage on this topic in the mainstream media.

Imagine our surprise when we discovered extensive proof of government involvement, funding, sponsorship, multidisciplinary research, policy making and implementation of global atmospheric modification under the classification of 'Geoengineering.' This is the chemtrail smoking gun we have been looking for.

Authorized by Congress and sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, a monumental and in-depth study on global warming and possible corrective measures (mitigations) was undertaken in the early 1990s. Represented were senior researchers, faculty, theoreticians, atmospheric scientists, department heads and CEO's from a multitude of prestigious institutions. The Smithsonian, Harvard, General Motors, Cambridge, MIT, Yale, World Resources Institute, National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Oxford, Brookings Institution, Columbia University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Carnegie-Mellon University, Princeton University, Brown University, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and many more. This colossal study recalls the scope, expense and secrecy of the Manhattan Project, yet the goals and eventual impacts of it are far greater.

The following excerpts detail the preferred geoengineering Mitigations for reducing greenhouse gasses, global warming and radiation from space. Quoted from: Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base - Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming


"The first set of geoengineering options screens incoming solar radiation with dust or soot in orbit about the earth or in the atmosphere. The second set changes cloud abundance by increasing cloud condensation nuclei through carefully controlled emissions of particulate matter."


"Aircraft Exhaust Penner et al. (1984) suggested that emissions of 1 percent of the fuel mass of the commercial aviation fleet as particulates, between 40,000- and 100,000-foot (12- to 30-km) altitude for a 10-year period, would change the planetary albedo sufficiently to neutralize the effects of an equivalent doubling of CO2. They proposed that retuning the engine combustion systems to burn rich during the high-altitude portion of commercial flights could be done with negligible efficiency loss. Using Reck's estimates of extinction coefficients for particulates (Reck, 1979a, 1984), they estimated a requirement of about 1.168 ¥ 1010 kg of particulates, compared with the panel's estimate of 1010 kg, based upon Ramaswamy and Kiehl (1985). They then estimated that if 1 percent of the fuel of aircraft flying above 30,000 feet is emitted as soot, over a 10-year period the required mass of particulate material would be emitted.


"An alternate possibility is simply to lease commercial aircraft to carry dust to their maximum flight altitude, where they would distribute it. To make a cost estimate, a simple assumption is made that the same amount of dust assumed above for the stratosphere would work for the tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere). The results can be scaled for other amounts. The comments made above about the possible effect of dust on stratospheric ozone apply as well to ozone in the low stratosphere, but not in the troposphere. The altitude of the tropopause varies with latitude and season of the year."


"Sunlight screening systems would not have to be put into practice until shortly before they were needed for mitigation, although research to understand their effects, as well as design and engineering work, should be done now so that it will be known whether these technologies are available if wanted."
"Perhaps one of the surprises of this analysis is the relatively low costs at which some of the geoengineering options might be implemented."

Ok It's all quoted from the site i know but it's for people who don't bother to look at the link and also theres the...

"Following is a partial list of those involved in this monumental study:"
So you can go to the webpage and browse over the credible people and universities involved etc etc etc.????

So what's up Doc, care to explain your position on this site and its conclusions OP?

How come you've avoided it? seems to credible or against your bias?

I may be coming off smug but it's you guys who have been belittling us and calling us crazies or wacked out unfounded

Also NWO dave420 is a term the politicians have been tossing around for a long time not ours get it straight, don't lump them in with david icke/ reptillians/.......the New world ya no politicians ever mentioned that before.......I suggest you to read some speeches while you 420


[edit on 28-11-2008 by GodshipForAll]

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 06:22 AM

Originally posted by ziggystar60
So, have you managed to find a more credible chemtrail site with DOCUMENTED, PROVEN FACTS AND NUMBERS regarding the death rate in US? Surely it must have been skyrocketing ever since the evil NHO/Illuminati decided to kill us all with chemtrails?

I did read somewhere that life expectancy in the US had dropped about 6 years in the last 6 or 7 years. But that could be McDonald's fault for all I know.

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 07:03 AM
reply to post by Phage

And so, out of this apparently frivolous study, we reach a conclusion that actually makes a lot of sense.

Well done, Phage - and FatherLukeDuke for making the connection.

But I still think beans come into it somewhere.

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 07:36 AM
reply to post by GodshipForAll

Interesting that you replied and brought out quotes from the study i linked to, and phage completely ignored it.

Wow, guess they dont pay him enough to do ACtual Scientific Research.

How many classified projects exist that we have no clue of, people suspect, and once de-classfied all the crazy theorists are vindicated, after their reptuations are destroyed.


posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 10:44 AM
reply to post by GodshipForAll

I've avoided it here because it is off topic.

I did look at the link previously and found nothing but misrepresentation of a feasibility study. Without going to the source it is easy to be mislead by words such as

This is the chemtrail smoking gun we have been looking for.

There is no evidence that anything is being done.

Since you apparently didn't go to the source, here a a few more quotes from the study:

Engineered countermeasures need to be evaluated but should not be implemented without broad understanding of the direct effects and the potential side effects, the ethical issues, and the risks.

Another, which seems to indicate no action is needed:

So far as we can reason from the assumed gradual changes in climate, their impacts will be no more severe, and adapting to them will be no more difficult, than for the range of climates already on earth and no more difficult than for other changes humanity faces. However, because we cannot rule out major changes in ocean currents, atmospheric circulations, or other natural or social surprises, we need to be alert to any substantial probability or signs of such changes that would require responses not considered in our report.

The panel again emphasizes that substantial uncertainties cloud all the numerical estimates summarized in this chapter. The degree of uncertainty varies greatly, but in many important instances such as the large-scale "geoengineering" alternatives, it is so large that even relative judgments must be made tentatively. More generally, the assembly of information in this report should be regarded as useful primarily for comparing large families of options, and not as specific recommendations of steps to be taken without additional analysis, research, or empirical study.

Other possible means of mitigation in that study, about which nothing (apparently) has been done:

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)—which is supported by the nation's electric industry—recently concluded that, by implementing existing efficiency technologies, total projected electricity use in the U.S. residential sector for the year 2000 could be reduced by 27.1 percent to 45.5 percent, with a similar reduction of 22.5 percent to 48.6 percent in the commercial sector (Electric Power Research Institute, 1990).

The principal opportunities for reducing energy use and CO2 emissions through increased recycling lie in the primary metals, pulp and paper, organic chemicals, and petroleum refining industries (Ross, 1990a). Recycled materials substitute for raw materials whose processing and refining typically are the most energy-intensive phases of manufacturing. Thus significant energy savings can be achieved when the demand for raw materials is reduced. Because of impurities typically associated with recycled material, some process modifications or preprocessing steps often are necessary to utilize recycled materials. In some cases, impurities preclude a material's being reused for its original purpose (e.g., printers ink in recycled newspaper). Thus other applications of recycled material may be sought (e.g., wastepaper for insulation materials rather than newsprint). Major limitations to increased recycling at the present time include the creation of markets for postconsumer recycled material in the manufacture of higher-quality products than heretofore and the reliable and clean collection of a high fraction of selected postconsumer materials (Ross, 1989b).

Integrating concern for the long-term sustainability of tropical forests into international economic development and U.S. foreign policy would help to advance forest protection. The economic development of tropical nations intersects in important ways with those nations' management of their forestlands. Tropical forests also hold a major share of the world's species. Until recently, exploitation of tropical forests has been regarded as a means for developing nations to obtain income from forested lands and space for expanded settlement. Increasing interest in the sustainable uses of forests, both to produce commodities such as rubber and to promote services such as ecotourism, reflects a growing appreciation of nondepleting use patterns as being valuable in their own right and as ways of attracting international assistance and investment.

From: Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming(1992)

[edit on 11/28/2008 by Phage]

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 10:56 AM
Let me just ask you an honest, forthright question...

Are you here to prove your agenda, or are you sincerely seeking the truth of this matter?

In the event that this could actually be legitimate threat to human health, I would assume that you would like to be informed.

That is, unless you have other motives.

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 11:08 AM
I've avoided it here because it is off topic.

Actually, off topic would be your inability to refute even one scientific principle discussed in said article, and instead your enthusiastic cutting and pasting to obfuscate the material facts.

And I suppose you will next tell me that these insiders are just spreading lies for the sheer jollies it gives them:

Your efforts at discrediting the sources are running thin. You might just have to actually examine the facts (shiver).

Awaiting your next Strawman.

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 11:14 AM
reply to post by Tinkabit

Strawman coming right up!

This is taken from the disclaimer at

Neither Jeff Rense nor necessarily adhere to, or endorse, any or all of the links, stories, articles, editorials, or products offered by sponsors found on this site, or broadcast on the Jeff Rense radio program.

So who knows if even Jeff Rense think the article is credible...

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 11:17 AM
quote from article:

Referring to the 757s recently modified for aerial spraying, the crew chief told, "We've got them, but I can't talk about them."

He added that many people in the air force "are aware of William Thomas" and his reporting on chemtrails. The crew chief confirmed that this reporter "has it mostly right" concerning the application and purposes behind chemtrails. But would not elaborate on my reporting.

Did it ever occur to you that you do not have PROOF because you are not MEANT to?????????

I suppose you buy the lone gunman gig too.

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 11:17 AM
[edit on 28-11-2008 by Tinkabit]

Gee, look at the nice man with the pretty rainbow contrail behind him. He looks really goodhearted.

Wonder why we did not have rainbow clouds when I was a kid??

[edit on 28-11-2008 by Tinkabit]

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 11:40 AM
It is the tradition of covert ops NOT to take out full page ads letting us all in on the scientific evidence.

But they do like to tantilize us with thier calling cards.

Check out the Georgia Guidestones, and the Denver Airport for some not -so -subtle clues.

But I am sure you know all this.

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 12:16 PM
Too Unlikely? Here it is WRITTEN IN STONE

Of Special note is the depopulation statement, of which some crazy paranoid conpiracy nuts have suspected that Funny "Contrials" may be a tool for. (one of many)

It is my sincere hope that this is a mere lack of knowlege and awareness that makes you so desperate to deny what you know not of. And not something less noble.

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Tinkabit

Wonder why we did not have rainbow clouds when I was a kid??
[edit on 28-11-2008 by Tinkabit]

I don't know how old you are, but it may be because this phenomena is very rare. I have only seen these kind of clouds a couple of times myself.

Also known as a ‘fire rainbow’ these streaks of colour are created when light is refracted through ice crystals in cirrus clouds. The phenomenon is especially rare as both the ice crystals and sun must be oriented in exact horizontal alignment to create the effect. This particularly dramatic example was captured in the sky over Spokane, WA, in 2006.

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 12:22 PM

By Dr. Stephen C. L'Hommedieu, D.C.
March 4, 2007

Saturday evening I was able to sit back and watch the Discovery channel chemtrail coverage originally presented on Thursday evening. With previous news of the upcoming broadcast I pondered what slant would be used to obscure the public’s understanding to what these really are. Sure enough, I wasn’t disappointed.

Immediately the deception began by directing the emphasis of the presentation to a faulty concept of an aluminum component present in commercial jet fuel. This ‘scientific investigation’ appeared very impressive on the surface. It seemed as if they were actually determined to go all-out to solve this chemtrail ‘mystery.’ Armed with $1M in research equipment to ‘sniff’ out the chemical culprits thought to be secretly hidden in commercial jet fuel; predictably, they found nothing. I suspect even the researchers knew they wouldn’t find anything in the commercial jet fuel because even I knew they wouldn’t. However, I did find it interesting that the military refused to provide a sample of their jet fuel for testing. Suggestive that something is obviously going on.

The material for this ‘investigation’ presented by the ‘Not to Discover’ channel was just as you would expect from a controlled media production. They presented carefully selected material arranged into a purposely crafted design. They started with an easily dismantled, implausible and ridiculous hypothesis from a collection of amateur opinions on chemtrails. The investigation then set the stage for discarding the validity of chemtrails from this bogus hypothesis. This is the kind of bad ‘science’ commonly implemented to dismantle any information that gets too close to the truth. It’s called discrediting.

Full Thread Here:

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 12:31 PM
reply to post by ziggystar60

Hi there friend,

That phenomena is called irisation. Here are a few links that explain it.

irisation 1

irisation 2

irisation 3

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 12:37 PM
Ok then. Let's look at what has Already Been Admitted. Are they lying??

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 12:39 PM
reply to post by QBSneak000

Thank you so much! I will save the links, I am sure they will come to good use.

Here is a good site for you also with many, many great photos of different types of clouds. It it the site of "The Cloud Appreciation Society", and may also be useful when topics like contrails and clouds are the subject:

And thanks again for the links!

[edit on 28/11/08 by ziggystar60]

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 12:51 PM
Oh Gee look what the MSM is of course this is another country, and since we dont believe in Global Agenda's, I am sure these guys are all lying too...

I am really interested in hearing your response to this one.

Although silence has a volume of its own.

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in