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.

 

G. Edward Griffin Goes On Record in Video About Chemtrails Conspiracy

page: 11
49
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
This has always been a good lesson for all conspiracy believers, particularly Chemtrail believers:

"THE MOON: A Propaganda Hoax"

www.revisionism.nl...


The Moon does not exist!

This is no lie. Until recently, I, too, believed in the traditional, establishment view of the moon. But any thinking person, untainted by the biases imposed on us by the controlled media, will have no choice but to reach the conclusion I did once faced with the facts described in this account.


There is an unclaimed prize of $100,000 for "conclusive physical evidence of the existence of the moon."

Read. Understand. Learn.




posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   


Your qupte there is a fine example of how out of control this is, and how it veers well wide of the mark, into speculation and complete, unadulterated and unconnected topics.




You're about half a century behind the time. The current events of today were mapped out (since the mid 50's) in writing. I made mention of gene mutation to put things in context. Same with plasma weaponry. These type projects are undoubtedly tied in with manipulating air space.


Therefore, immediately after the Sept. 11th attacks, Boeing persuaded Congress to approve a plan under which the Air Force would lease 100 new wide-body Boeing jets for use as refueling tankers for six years, at a cost of millions a year for each plane until the end of the lease, at which time the Air Force would buy the planes outright.


I believe those were modified 767's. I'm sure you'll correct me, if I'm wrong. Actually, I'll correct myself... Looks like this deal was axed. Citing new sources now.



AND...they (the passenger flights) CANNOT just 'dump' fuel overboard!!! I've already shown you that the majority of passenger airplanes can't dump AT ALL!!! And, they need the darned stuff to run the engines! AND, it's expensive, and not wasted like that, unless it's an emergency! What part of this is so difficult to comprehend? This is getting ridiculous, trying to explain reality to those who cannot bother to learn.



You've skipped over twice now ethylene diamine, and I'm not waiting around for a third... You bore me. It's like talking to my Dad. He's worked 35 years at the same job. Has no clue about the economy. Labeled me an alarmist for advising him to pull out of the stock market in Oct '07. Only difference... Instead of ATS he sits around playing online poker. He also has jack # for a retirement fund. To each his own. Too bad you two are a reflection of the vast majority. The truly sad part about it is... This ain't the prairie days any longer. You have access with the click of a button. Unfortunately, you fart if off, and you waste time in the process.



If you'll read earlier posts, you'll find a reference to Boeing and current research on plasma weaponry.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by Americanist]

[edit on 16-4-2010 by Americanist]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist

You're about half a century behind the time. The current events of today were mapped out (since the mid 50's) in writing. I made mention of gene mutation to put things in context. Same with plasma weaponry. These type projects are undoubtedly tied in with manipulating air space.

Therefore, immediately after the Sept. 11th attacks, Boeing persuaded Congress to approve a plan under which the Air Force would lease 100 new wide-body Boeing jets for use as refueling tankers for six years, at a cost of millions a year for each plane until the end of the lease, at which time the Air Force would buy the planes outright.

I believe those were modified 767's. I'm sure you'll correct me, if I'm wrong.


No your not wrong. And here is the proof: scroll down to the
"Unethical Conduct" Heading.

www.answers.com...

Can you tell me anymore about ethylene diamine? I for one am all ears!



[edit on 16-4-2010 by burntheships]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   


No your not wrong. And here is the proof: scroll down to the "Unethical Conduct" Heading.


Thanks for chiming in... It appears the deal was revised to an 80/20 split.

You've heard of Morgellons Disease right?


Role in polymers Ethylenediamine, by virtue of its bifunctionality (i.e. it contains two reactive amines) is widely used in diverse polyester formulations. Condensates derived from formaldehyde are plasticizers. It is widely used in the production of polyurethane fibers. The PAMAM class of dendrimers are derived from ethylenediamine.[2]


Gene Delivery The ability to deliver pieces of DNA to the required parts of a cell includes many challenges. Current research is being performed to find ways to use dendrimers to traffic genes into cells without damaging or deactivating the DNA. To maintain the activity of DNA during dehydration, the dendrimer/DNA complexes were encapsulated in a water soluble polymer, and then deposited on or sandwiched in functional polymer films with a fast degradation rate to mediate gene transfection. Based on this method, PAMAM dendrimer/DNA complexes were used to encapsulate functional biodegradable polymer films for substratemediated gene delivery. Research has shown that the fast degrading functional polymer has great potential for localized transfection.[30] [31]


Transfection is the process of deliberately introducing nucleic acids into cells. The term is used notably for non-viral methods [1] in eukaryotic cells. It may also refer to other methods and cell types, although other terms are preferred: "transformation" is more often used to describe non-viral DNA transfer in bacteria, non-animal eukaryotic cells and plant cells - a distinctive sense of transformation refers to spontaneous genetic modifications (mutations to cancerous cells (cancerogenesis), or under stress (UV irradiation). "Transduction" is often used to describe virus-mediated DNA transfer. The word transfection is a blend of trans- and infection. Genetic material (such as supercoiled plasmid DNA or siRNA constructs), or even proteins such as antibodies, may be transfected.


[edit on 16-4-2010 by Americanist]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


The information you supplied about the modifed Boeing's is very interesting. I am now able to connect the dots. Thanks!

I have read about Morgellons, here is an ongoing thread we can discuss that over there, www.abovetopsecret.com... for the sake of keeping this thread on topic
.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


That's just one of those things I remembered. It's a puzzle... I'm glad to see a few of the pieces.



Perhaps I'll post to the Morgellons thread too. It would help to know what the vehicle is.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
variant of dafte, foolish

Still in use in various parts of the english speaking world as sarcasm. Glad to know I sent you off to the dictionary though.


I was just quoting it so you wouldn't have to take my word for granted. I already knew the difference between "deft" and "daft," which are complete opposites in the rest of the English-speaking world.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Oh, Jeebus!

NOW it's going off the rails, here. Morgellon's???

Seems some people, when goaded by those nutjobs who make the "chemtrail" websites, will believe ANYTHING they read, without question, and without due dilligence and research into the topic:


Current scientific consensus holds that Morgellons is not a new disorder and is instead a new and misleading name for known illnesses. Most doctors, including dermatologists and psychiatrists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis, (**) although some health professionals believe that Morgellons disease is a specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research.


Nothing like a good old hypochondriac-based malady to stir the ole' "conspiracy" juices, eh?

Sheesh! There ARE actual conspiracies out there, in the wide world. Just not this one!


Despite the lack of evidence that Morgellons is a novel or distinct condition and the absence of any agreed set of diagnostic symptoms, the Morgellons Research Foundation (*) and self-diagnosed
....

"self-diagnosed"??? THAT should be the biggest red flag to just about any rational thinking adult...

Anyone noticed how it's convenient that this "new disease" cropped up at ABOUT THE SAME TIME that the Internet grew, and sites such as "Web MD" were made available???

Remember, hypochondria....just sayin'


(*) = $$$$$ in someone's eyes.....


NOW, how about looking into more about this woman, "Mary Leitao"?



In 2001, according to Mary Leitao, her then two-year-old son developed sores under his lip and began to complain of "bugs." Leitao, who graduated with a BS in Biology, and worked for five years at Boston hospitals as a lab technician before becoming a stay-at-home mother, says she examined the sores with her son's toy microscope and discovered red, blue, black, and white fibers.


Red, blue, black and white fibers? Ever looked at United States currency bills? The sores on on the kid's lips? Hmmmm..... And, what color is the carpet in their home? The towels, and bedsheets?


Psychology Today
...Hmmmmm, very interesting, a psychology magazine...

reports that Leitao last consulted an unnamed Johns Hopkins infectious disease specialist who after reviewing her son's records refused to see him, suggesting Leitao herself might suffer from "Munchausen's by proxy, a psychiatric syndrome in which a parent pretends a child is sick or makes him sick to get attention from the medical system." This opinion of a potential psychological disorder, according to Leitao, was shared by several medical professionals she sought out.


Well, maybe that's a bit harsh on the parents, since the father is a medical doctor (internal medicine). Still, these two seem to be on some sort of personal mission:


She chose the name Morgellons disease (with a hard g) from a description of an illness in the monograph A Letter to a Friend by Sir Thomas Browne, in 1690...


!!! 1690? Man, this "chemtrail" stuff has been around for a long, long time! >sarc<



...wherein Browne describes several medical conditions in his experience, including "that endemial distemper of children in Languedoc, called the morgellons, wherein they critically break out with harsh hairs on their backs."


Folks....welcome to the 21st century, where, because of the immediacyof media, and especially the viral nature of the Internet, you too can form yor own "Foundation" to study a made-up 'disease' and get people all riled up over nothing.

Congratualtions!


In May 2006, a CBS news segment on Morgellons aired in Southern California. The same day the Los Angeles County Department of Health services issued a statement saying, "No credible medical or public health association has verified the existence or diagnosis of 'Morgellons Disease'," and "at this time there is no reason for individuals to panic over unsubstantiated reports of this disease."


Of course, THEY are all 'in on it'...right??
Gee, 2006...that's only about four years ago....hmmmmm.

Ah, but doesn't stop the bandwagon, even on the flimsiest of evidence:


The first article to propose Morgellons as a new disease in a scientific journal was a review article co-authored by members of the MRF and published in 2006 by the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology.[26] An article in the San Francisco Chronicle reported, "There have been no clinical studies" (of Morgellons disease).

en.wikipedia.org...

Also, the (**) from above: Delusional Parasotosis explained...


AS TO the Boeing KC-767 tanker program....these are NOT 'modified' stock B-767 passenger jets, the concept is a production-line-based airplane, devoted to in-flight refueling missions. Do not confuse the term 'derivative' with 'modified', please.

PLEASE, by all means, research into this as well. I've already addressed that particular canard many times, here at ATS. In year 2001 THEY DID NOT YET EXIST! (So, good luck trying to make that 9/11 connection, if you are so inclined).


The tanker received the designation KC-767A in 2002 after being selected by the US Air Force initially to replace older KC-135Es. In December 2003, the contract was frozen and later canceled due to corruption allegations.

The tanker is currently being developed for use by the Italian and Japanese air forces, who have ordered four tankers each. Financing of the development of the aircraft, over $1 billion, has been borne by Boeing, in that it hoped to get major orders from the U.S. Air Force.

en.wikipedia.org...

However, keeping in mind that the USAF contract with Boeing was Canceled, due to some shenanigans under the table. Only eight orders so far, and those are going to foreign Air Forces.

The USAF has NO KC-767s as yet. Airbus complained about being shut out of the bidding and proposed THEIR version, a derivative of the A-330 (in cooperation with Northrup-Grumman, here in the United States).

The USAF has not yet decided, (I think, but it changes rapidly).




[edit on 17 April 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Your entire long rabbit trail
of a post is off topic. As I referred the last comment about morgellons to the existing thread, I will do so to you as well. Here it is,www.abovetopsecret.com... take your off topic posts there.


Furthermore, I was not addressing you, nor will I.
The links you provided in your post are but just one source of THOUSANDS, and many sources contradict YOUR source.


Stay on topic or get out of the thread. You CANT do it.
YOU bring no new evidence to the table, YOUR full of regurgitation of your old posts somewhere on ATS?


How many times do we all have to tell YOU this is a conspiracy forum.

The topic here, is in case YOU forgot....G. Edward Griffin Goes On Record In Video About Chemtrails.






And on top of that your no fun.





[edit on 17-4-2010 by burntheships]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Oh, I am QUITE on topic.

"Griffin" in a video spouts nonsense, but that merely stokes the furnaces of the others who will latch onto this perception of "credibility" displayed by the nutcase in the video (or, maybe he's crazy like a fox, just as his brother? $$$...)...

No, ONCE you open this Pandora's Box, and start a "chemtrail" topic thread, YOU invite all comers.

Because, the notion of "chemtrails" attracts the fringe 'believers'....who only remain 'fringed' because they haven't yet been properly educated, and are unable to separate the wheat from the ... ahem, I can't resist ...chaff.


"Chemtrails", as commonly portrayed and suggested by just about every 'believer' out there (just peruse any of the websites devoted to them) are almost universally commited to the crackpot notion that a large-scale "spraying" is being conducted, all over the World, at high altitudes that are typical of commercial jet traffic (and, of course, military jets, since ALL jet engines are most efficient at higher altitudes, in terms of fuel economy and range, etc).

Any substance 'released' into the atmosphere, at 30,000+ feet is going to be CARRIED well downwind, and will dissipate greatly, before it ever begins to affect anything on the surface.

This mere fact is overlooked/or not well understood by the 'believers', who would rather cling to the trumpeting of "nefarious, evil-doers are out to get ya" mindset that the "chemtrail" websites wish to foster.

The science and well-understood facts of meterology, aviation, and other disciplines don't enter into their consciousness, or are willfully excluded from the equation, IF they interfere witht he firmly-held original "belief" of "chemtrails".

I think this could also be a subset of a psychological investigation, but THAT is certainly outside the boundaries of the discussion, in THIS thread.

PS...and, NO....I obviously didn't just pull out and 'dust-off' my old posts. I wrote anew, and freshly, because it is the SAME answer, each and every time this topic comes up.

Science. Reason. Experience.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AND, as others have pointed out, back on Page 1 or 2 of this thread, ref. the 'Griffin" video, the man does NOT know what he's talking about.

He makes vague (and irrelevant) mention of "watching jets his whole life", because he lived near a major airport?!? (LAX). That is truly laughable.

But, it gets better. And, his key words, near the end of the interview, are in "his opinion"....because, that is all it is, and he's entirely WRONG, in the beginning, in the description of contrails.

He obviously has no scientific knowledge, else he wouldn't be making such a fool of himself (or, as I mentioned, he might know he's full of it, but is keen on the profit motive...).

Not all contrails only last for "ten or twenty airplane lengths". The conditions for contrail formation vary, and as a result, so do the thickness, and viability of the contrails. Coupled with the engine technology design changes, especially in the last 10-15 years or so.

Look up the differences between the predominate 'High Bypass Turbo Fan", and the details of the exhaust released, and why they form bigger, more sustainable contrails, with the earlier 'straight' TurboJets, from the 1960s as jet travel was just starting to become commonplace.

get OUT of the "chemtrail" websites, and look online for real information. Talk to meterologists, seek out pilots (I'm just some anonymous dude, but IF you find a pilot whom you can verify, then MAYBE what I've been writing will make more sense?).

Because, I can only write from what I know, and what I know comes from experience. That knowledge is hands-down greater than the bloke "Griffin" in the OP video, I can assure you.






[edit on 17 April 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


In a past life, you were probably one of those people who screamed heretic, quoted from the Bible, and then whacked off someone's head.

Why don't you research when bi-polar disorder was coined? How about chronic fatigue syndrome or autism... These were all defined well after the fact. Your 1690's reference is based on the sensation felt. I could pull up data suggesting these towel fibers, carpet, or whatever you'd like to lump them in as have a melting point of over 1500 degrees. Whoever manufactured those types of threads made sure they were stain-resistant even in Hell.

As far as the types of planes with chemical/ fuel dumps... They're out there, and they're up in our skies. What they're being used for is anyone's guess. The technology we're presented with is on average 10-20 years back from the engineering standpoint of our military.

You my friend are fighting a losing battle because you can't refute what you're not aware of. The only thing we're able to agree upon is the fact we don't know what we don't know.

Now if you would turn your efforts towards unbiased reasoning... You'll find yourself with something a little more worthy to share.


Tata... "A"

[edit on 17-4-2010 by Americanist]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


In a past life, you were probably one of those people who screamed heretic, quoted from the Bible, and then whacked off someone's head.


Okay Mods, I know I shouldn't but ......

I think in a past life Weedwacker was one of those who was screamed at for being a heretic because he opened his eyes, and looked, and saw, and he wouldn't conform with what the priests told him.

Sorry, but it had to be said.


Edit: and in this life he does the same.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by Essan]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


The funny things about heretics and those with their eyes opened, is that they are always the persecuted minority.

The ideas that the greatest amount of people unthinkingly take for granted, are always the ones that turn out to have been the stupidest. Whether it be thinking the Sun revolves around the Earth or that everything is made of atoms.


Masses of people thinking something = status quo. And their numbers give them so much confidence, all the confidence they personally might need, that they will die believing what they believe.

A few here and there who challenge it = not just following the status quo, but taking issue with it.


I am never satisfied that I know the whole story, and in thinking that way, I have never once been wrong. Compare that with someone who already thinks they know it all, who is bound to be wrong every single time.

Who is challenging the status quo here?

[edit on 17-4-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The funny things about heretics and those with their eyes opened, is that they are always the persecuted minority.


ALWAYS? Heretics are not always right, and they are certainly not ALWAYS the persecuted minority...


The ideas that the greatest amount of people unthinkingly take for granted, are always the ones that turn out to have been the stupidest. Whether it be thinking the Sun revolves around the Earth or that everything is made of atoms.

The Sun *does* revolve around the earth, if your positon on the earth is the frame of reference. Indeed, can you, bsbray, from personal observation, prove that it doesn't?

The whole point of these oft-quoted 'examples', is that there is a process by which theories gradually become accepted and written into 'accepted' science. Sometimes theories aren't right, or they get refined as new information comes in. That is how science works. You have to FALSIFY a theory by observation before it can be dislodged. Do you disagree with that approach? If you do, then I suggest you stop using that computer, because all of the intricate science that goes into that PC and its connection to the internet depends on that process. As with much of what you have, enjoy and believe.

Now here, much information has been given about contrails. It is well known and accepted science. In fact people who make ridiculous claims like 'contrails shouldn't persist', simply reveal their utter ignorance of what has gone before. If contrails didn't persist, THERE WOULD BE NO CLOUDS.

If I need to explain that, then there is no hope of having a sensible discussion - such ignorance should be shunned, just as you would shun someones claim that your computer is actually driven by leprechauns.


Masses of people thinking something = status quo. And their numbers give them so much confidence, all the confidence they personally might need, that they will die believing what they believe.

And what if masses of people happen to be correct, like those who believe that the Earth does revolve around the Sun from an external frame of reference, or that things are in fact made of atoms, or that jet engines at high altitudes will make contrails if the conditions are right, and that those contrails will not only persist but grow into cirrus formations, again if the conditions are right.

Because that is the simple truth. Easily provable. Which also means that until we see a pile of documented videos showing contrails where there shouldn't be any, then posting such videos is WORTHLESS.



I am never satisfied that I know the whole story

Neither am I, but if verifiable science tells me something, then I won't dismiss that until verifiable observations show otherwise.


I have never once been wrong.

I've been wrong plenty of times. The difference between us is - you just lied, or are the only perfect human being on the planet. Congrats.

You will NEVER hear any scientist or researcher make such a laughable claim.


Compare that with someone who already thinks they know it all, who is bound to be wrong every single time.

But wait, YOU just said -"I have never once been wrong"...

See below in regard to just one of the pictures you posted.. "never wrong", huh????


Who is challenging the status quo here?

Certainly not you. All you are doing is handwaving, avoiding contrail formation facts and providing tenuous links, unsupported anecdotes, debunked images.. does this plane (the "Evergreen Supertanker") look familiar, and tell us - what is it doing?:
www.wired.com...
You're never wrong, huh?

The 'status quo' is currently standing unchallenged. Because it is correct. Demonstrably correct. Here's those links again:
flightaware.com...
weather.uwyo.edu...
www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...

And before posting silly hoax images again, maybe you could stop in here and check if they are well-known:
depletedcranium.com...
or perhaps just be a little more cautious and instead of making wild (and WRONG) claims, just ASK if we can help identify the aircraft and what it was doing.

That's what real researchers do... you should try it sometime.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Now here, much information has been given about contrails. It is well known and accepted science. In fact people who make ridiculous claims like 'contrails shouldn't persist', simply reveal their utter ignorance of what has gone before. If contrails didn't persist, THERE WOULD BE NO CLOUDS.

If I need to explain that, then there is no hope of having a sensible discussion - such ignorance should be shunned, just as you would shun someones claim that your computer is actually driven by leprechauns.


I don't remember where I said contrails shouldn't persist, can you point it out in one of my posts for me?

And right after this long spiel about how if I don't use the logical process correctly I shouldn't even use a computer.



And what if masses of people happen to be correct, like those who believe that the Earth does revolve around the Sun from an external frame of reference, or that things are in fact made of atoms, or that jet engines at high altitudes will make contrails if the conditions are right, and that those contrails will not only persist but grow into cirrus formations, again if the conditions are right.


And I never said exhaust couldn't do that by itself. But neither of those things negate the possibility of other chemicals being released into the air by whatever means for whatever reason. You don't know what exactly I'm arguing because you just assumed I was saying two things that I never posted. All I'm saying is that you people can't really debunk anything as far as the reality of chemicals being dumped into the air because it would amount to proving a very difficult negative.



Compare that with someone who already thinks they know it all, who is bound to be wrong every single time.

But wait, YOU just said -"I have never once been wrong"...

See below in regard to just one of the pictures you posted.. "never wrong", huh????


Because I am always correct when I say I don't know something. I guess you missed the end of the sentence that qualified it, "when I say I don't know."

How can I be wrong if I'm saying that I don't know? Are you saying I'm lying and exaggerating my own ignorance?




Who is challenging the status quo here?

Certainly not you. All you are doing is handwaving, avoiding contrail formation facts and providing tenuous links, unsupported anecdotes, debunked images.. does this plane (the "Evergreen Supertanker") look familiar, and tell us - what is it doing?:
www.wired.com...
You're never wrong, huh?


Again you are either hallucinating or responding to the wrong person. See above. I never posted that link.


That's what real researchers do... you should try it sometime.


Well if you get out of your house once in a while in the mean time you might realize that planes are flying over your head all the time from all sorts of air fields, public, private, government, commercial. And there is little to no accountability in most cases as to what these planes are doing while they are flying around in the air.

Now I've already told you I wasn't making all the claims you were ranting about. So those would be "straw men." All I ever said was you don't know what in the hell is being put in the air by anybody, because you don't. And if you think you do know all that, then I'd like to see you prove the negative, that no one is putting any chemicals into the air in any way for any reason, because that would be one hell of a proof.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't remember where I said contrails shouldn't persist, can you point it out in one of my posts for me?

I didn't say it was you, so have a guess, who would be the next likeliest person...

Hint - perhaps the subject of the OP?


And I never said exhaust couldn't do that by itself. But neither of those things negate the possibility of other chemicals being released into the air by whatever means for whatever reason. You don't know what exactly I'm arguing because you just assumed I was saying two things that I never posted. All I'm saying is that you people can't really debunk anything as far as the reality of chemicals being dumped into the air because it would amount to proving a very difficult negative.

So what is the point of your argument? None of the debunkers have said it is impossible to chemicals to be dumped into the air. Indeed, every jet engine puts out small amounts of pollutants. So does every car, and it would be possible to fit a lot of cars/vans/trucks with chemical delivery systems (and a hell of a lot more controllable and efficient, not to mention more clandestine..). But I have no evidence for such a thing. (yes, that was an analogy..)

You have no evidence either, to support the chemtrail conspiracy, namely that the trails that we see in the sky are deliberately sprayed chemicals. That's what the thread is about.


How can I be wrong if I'm saying that I don't know? Are you saying I'm lying and exaggerating my own ignorance?

YOU said that the Evergreen tanker was cloud seeding. Do I need to quote you and repost the image? (see below, obviously you do)
You were wrong. That's W R O N G. Go on, say it. It's good for the soul.


Again you are either hallucinating or responding to the wrong person. See above. I never posted that link.

Oh, rly?? OK, here's the post:
Earlier post by bsbray
and here's the picture YOU posted.

It's very obviously the Evergreen tanker, a FIREFIGHTING aircraft, as shown by my link here:
www.wired.com...

Is this getting through yet???? Your research skills are coming into deep question... along with your short term memory.


Well if you get out of your house once in a while

Observation is worthwhile, but only truly useful if you have a background in aviation and meteorology and/or the willingness to do some proper research (that would be at places other than Youtube and snake-oil sites that are selling books and videos).


And there is little to no accountability in most cases as to what these planes are doing while they are flying around in the air.

Still haven't managed to open up the flightaware site, eh?
flightaware.com...
Horse - water...


Now I've already told you I wasn't making all the claims you were ranting about. So those would be "straw men."

No, those would be... WHAT THE THREAD IS ABOUT.

If you wish to introduce some other strawmen.. er I mean "relevant topics", why not do so in plain language instead of beating around the bush so much?


All I ever said was you don't know what in the hell is being put in the air by anybody, because you don't.

And yet YOU are the one who posted several pictures and got some of them completely wrong. I think my record here is a lot better than yours, but I'll let the audience decide.


And if you think you do know all that, then I'd like to see you prove the negative, that no one is putting any chemicals into the air in any way for any reason, because that would be one hell of a proof.

I don't claim to know that, and I'm not trying to prove a negative. I'm simply correcting all the stuff you get wrong, and posting information about contrails in the hope that some will see the truth, or it may motivate others to actually get off their fat .... and do some proper recording of flights and contrails so that they will suddenly realise for themselves that.. "oh yes, look, that flight *should* be making contrails..."

And then maybe we might get less idiots posting worthless videos of contrails on youtube, and scamming clowns like Griffin might be prevented from ripping off the gullible.

For as we can see above, there are *plenty* of gullible folk around.


[edit on 18-4-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't remember where I said contrails shouldn't persist, can you point it out in one of my posts for me?


I didn't say it was you, so have a guess, who would be the next likeliest person...

Hint - perhaps the subject of the OP?


That's the first time I've ever heard of someone responding to another person without even mentioning their name anywhere, and right after responding specifically to me.


So what is the point of your argument? None of the debunkers have said it is impossible to chemicals to be dumped into the air. Indeed, every jet engine puts out small amounts of pollutants. So does every car, and it would be possible to fit a lot of cars/vans/trucks with chemical delivery systems (and a hell of a lot more controllable and efficient, not to mention more clandestine..). But I have no evidence for such a thing. (yes, that was an analogy..)


Exactly. And that's all I'm bringing to the thread, and reminding people.



YOU said that the Evergreen tanker was cloud seeding. Do I need to quote you and repost the image? (see below, obviously you do)
You were wrong. That's W R O N G. Go on, say it. It's good for the soul.


In that post I am asking how you could tell just by looking at the images what they were dropping. All the images I posted were of aircraft dropping various things from the air from a Google image search for "cloud seeding." As far as what I was saying it makes absolutely no difference what we're all told the planes are dropping. The point is only the same point I was talking about above, that you can't really negate other things getting into what aircraft drop.



Again you are either hallucinating or responding to the wrong person. See above. I never posted that link.

Oh, rly?? OK, here's the post:
Earlier post by bsbray
and here's the picture YOU posted.

It's very obviously the Evergreen tanker, a FIREFIGHTING aircraft, as shown by my link here:
www.wired.com...


Right, but that's not the same picture you just claimed I posted in your last post (this one), or the wired.com link, as you can see in my post you just linked to. And I explained that post above.


Is this getting through yet???? Your research skills are coming into deep question... along with your short term memory.


I never had made the claims you first posted to me at all, and now say you were talking to the OP despite never mentioning his username (nice one btw
), and when I told you I didn't post the image or link you were talking about, you even showed that no, I didn't.



Well if you get out of your house once in a while

Observation is worthwhile, but only truly useful if you have a background in aviation and meteorology and/or the willingness to do some proper research (that would be at places other than Youtube and snake-oil sites that are selling books and videos).


Yeah, people who sell books and videos are the scum of the earth. Not to be confused with our intelligence agencies, military industrial complex, big pharma, etc., because those are all filled with nice, helpful people who only want the cleanest, greenest planet Earth for us all to share.





And there is little to no accountability in most cases as to what these planes are doing while they are flying around in the air.

Still haven't managed to open up the flightaware site, eh?
flightaware.com...
Horse - water...


Another straw-man, surprise. I didn't say you couldn't track flights on radar. I said you can't keep track of what they are doing in the air, like, oh I don't know, what was the topic again... oh yeah, if they were dumping chemicals into the sky.



Now I've already told you I wasn't making all the claims you were ranting about. So those would be "straw men."

No, those would be... WHAT THE THREAD IS ABOUT.


Well in the future when you're not responding directly to me can you please clarify that? Instead of ranting off and then saying "Oh that wasn't addressed to you."



All I ever said was you don't know what in the hell is being put in the air by anybody, because you don't.

And yet YOU are the one who posted several pictures and got some of them completely wrong. I think my record here is a lot better than yours, but I'll let the audience decide.


Even if what you're saying wasn't completely convoluted, how is this any response at all to the fact that you don't know what all people are dumping into the sky? I failed to see the logical rebuttal you're trying to make here, so I guess you must still agree with what you just said earlier in your own post, "None of the debunkers have said it is impossible to chemicals to be dumped into the air." That means the same thing as it's possible, which means that whether or not it actually happened, we don't know.


And then maybe we might get less idiots posting worthless videos of contrails on youtube, and scamming clowns like Griffin might be prevented from ripping off the gullible.


So for the record you just think this guy's making everything up to make money off of gullible people. Sounds like a pretty serious charge. You know if you had evidence of that, you could take him to court!



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
That's the first time I've ever heard of someone responding to another person without even mentioning their name anywhere, and right after responding specifically to me.

This is getting a bit repetitive, but let me quote what I said. I'll bold the important words, and add a few little notes for you to ponder:

"Now here, much information has been given about contrails."
Is it not clear that I am referring to the thread, and not you?

".. In fact people who make ridiculous claims like 'contrails shouldn't persist'"
Don't you think I might have used the word YOU, if I meant you?

"..simply reveal their utter ignorance of what has gone before. If contrails didn't persist, THERE WOULD BE NO CLOUDS."
Again, do you see me referring to you?

"..such ignorance should be shunned"
So that would be the ignorance of the OP.

I find it hard to see how you could think that line of debate was aimed directly at you. Maybe the shoe was fitting..?



Exactly. And that's all I'm bringing to the thread, and reminding people.

Well, I brought the example of chemtrailing cars, trucks and vans with exactly the same amount of evidence you did, and yet you seem to be uninterested...


In that post I am asking how you could tell just by looking at the images what they were dropping.

So why did you say this above the images:

Here's another example of cloud seeding
(image)
Another one, more obvious this time
(image of firefighting aircraft)

Now forgive me for taking you words at face value... But if you are going to take ME to task for what I say, then expect the same level of scrutiny over what YOU say.


All the images I posted were of aircraft dropping various things from the air from a Google image search for "cloud seeding."

That's a brand new qualification - it is nowhere in the post you refer to. You can't change the rules halfway through the game.

You misled us about the image. Maybe subconciously, but seriously, you need to check the mirror before criticising others. TELL THE TRUTH about what you found, how you searched for it and whether you researched it, rather than make statements that can easily be shown as false.


Right, but that's not the same picture you just claimed I posted in your last post

Sigh. I did NOT say you posted it. I posted that link to SHOW you that the aircraft YOU had said was 'cloud seeding' was in fact designed for firefighting. I (rashly) assumed you would remember your own images..


Yeah, people who sell books and videos are the scum of the earth.

Yes, they are when they lie, mislead, cherry pick, post videos showing things that are not what they are claimed. You seem to want to help them do that...?


Not to be confused with our intelligence agencies, military industrial complex, big pharma, etc.

And when they lie and cheat, I'll happily agree with you.

So where did they lie and cheat on this one, PRECISELY?
Is flightaware faking it?
No, it can't be, because you can simply verify the flights by looking.
Is the contrail prediction site faking it?
Doesn't seem to be, as it all ties in with UWYO and all meteorological agencies that also do this stuff (there are MANY). You are aware that there are many independent, non-government run weather stations, and such a conspiracy simply could not be done?
Is the science (which has been documented for almost a century now) behind contrail formation wrong? Be specific - how is it wrong?

So basically, what I am saying is that you can verify contrail formation. Easily. It is cross-checkable against multiple sources.

So what does that leave you with? I mean, isn't this whole thread about LARGE SCALE chemtrailing? And yet no-one has managed to post even one documented example of a trail that wasn't in conducive conditions, or explained by other non-nefarious activity.

Right, so that means you need to provide *other* evidence - so where is it? Please provide that evidence - you know, the smoking gun...

Or concede that this is as just as likely as heavy invisible fairies with big boots being the cause of earthquakes.. That's my theory and I offer similar evidence to yours. Ie, none.


Well in the future when you're not responding directly to me can you please clarify that? Instead of ranting off and then saying "Oh that wasn't addressed to you."

Sure. In future can you read a little more carefully and not assume everything is about you, you, you?


"None of the debunkers have said it is impossible to chemicals to be dumped into the air." That means the same thing as it's possible, which means that whether or not it actually happened, we don't know.

We also don't know if them heavy transparent fairies are running around...
and I offer the same level of supporting evidence. What's your point exactly?

My point is that your idle speculations without any evidence are worth exactly what we just paid for them.


So for the record you just think this guy's making everything up to make money off of gullible people. Sounds like a pretty serious charge. You know if you had evidence of that, you could take him to court!

Pretty much, yes. And I trust you noticed the spamming of multiple websites, and the grab for donations at 4:20..? Sadly I'm not in the right country to be taking him to court. Maybe you should donate, and then when nothing comes of it, you could sue... Or if it all comes to fruition, then you will have the satisfaction of knowing you helped! Win-win!

Anyway, let me know when you actually have something...



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
...okay so explain this to me... he's a fiction author therefore he automatically gets cred or something?



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Contrails are produced at high altitude of 25-30K + ft and leave a very short term trail lasting from seconds to max of a minute depending on contrast of air conditions - condensation. Chemtrails generally appear around 10K feet and the trails will linger anywhere from 30 mins to 1 hr, sometimes longer, indicating the presence of compunds greater in density than water or dissipating jet fuel. When the sky has been blanketed over the course of a day it is a general haze. Check your sky in the am vs pm.

Commercial jets fly in regulated routes - they do not deviate and they do not fly for miles at an altitude below 10K ft. They do not fly for 50 miles then backtrack for another 50. They do not make curved patterns - I just took a picture of a jet making an "S" shape next to chemtrails already in the grid pattern. I have seen planes fly in tandem, side-by-side, same altitude, speed and distance - emitting their plumes for many miles.

I have many times seen chemtrails appear with no accompanying aircraft -cloaked drones, perhaps? I have seen chemtrails appear during cloudless days in the summer after 5 days of 100+ temps but the preferred time is spring and fall on a nice light cloudy mix day.

I believe these plume emissions may contain many contaminants. Contaminants that in some way will affect the health of individuals at a unique level. Some may contract cancer, some will get Alzheimers or dementia, some will get neurological problems, and some lingering respiratory issues - all depending on the immunity of the individual.

And this is where you have to open the doors of perception. There are individuals and groups out there with an agenda. They have subverted the political structure, the economies, the defense and the health of people around the world - the ultimate goal being to cleanse the planet of over 3/4 of its inhabitants. But this must be done stealthily with minimal observation or action from the public at large. Chemtrails are just one component of this nefarious agenda.

Someone on this site posted a video of a reporter on the street in LA - that's a pretty good down and dirty version and simply put. Also, for the maraschino cherry on top, visit the Evergreen Airlines site and look under the "photo simulation" category. There's a great image of multiple large jets flying directly over a major city (US it appears) emitting dense clouds of spray. And if you read their "applications", this is a very useful in crowd control situations. I'm just sayin'...

So don't characterize all of us as crackpots with tin foil hats. Some of us are thoughtful, concerned and very angry. Everything always has a larger picture, a larger agenda. Know that and you see the actions of humanity a lot differently. And as an aside, if there really aren't people with an evil agenda, just try to get into the next Bilderberger Conference.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join