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

page: 3
49
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

"Chemicals fired into the hazy skies".
"Loading clouds with silver iodide".

See the difference?



I have watched some of the trails here in MT dissipate for hours across the whole sky, and I'm sorry but that # ain't normal.


On the one hand we have hazy skies and clouds being treated with silver iodide, fired from mortars on the ground. That is called cloud seeding. It is also called weather modification. It is an attempt to artificially induce precipitation. It is not a secret program. It is done all over the world, even in the USA. Want some rain in your backyard? Give these guys a call, maybe they can help you out. Sometimes it works but don't count on it. www.nawcinc.com...

"Chemtrails" on the other hand...what do we hear about them? Clear skies turned cloudy. Jets at high altitudes. You are talking about two very different things. Cloud seeding has nothing to do with contrails or "chemtrails".




posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


There is a difference, yes. However I already know the difference.
I did not say that China's efforts consisted of chemtrails.

But...we should not simply take your word for it, you provide no evidence for your claim.

Edit to add, you replied to me, but quoted a different post.
Confused much? Or attempting to confuse?




[edit on 15-4-2010 by burntheships]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

Then why talk about cloud seeding in a thread about "chemtrails"? Just making conversation?

What claim do you mean? That contrails can persist? That contrails can spread? That the CFR has not encouraged the use of geoengineering?

I have provided evidence.


[edit on 4/14/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I don't expect to change any minds of the hardcore believers but I will demand evidence to back up their beliefs. Their lack of it is telling enough.


Does that apply to you too when I ask you for evidence to support everything you believe happened on 9/11, and you can't do it?



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


No Phage, you provided your opinion. I see no evidence from you.
You also replied to me, quoting someone else.

Confused much?



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

I replied to your (apparently off topic) post and included a quote from this thread regarding "chemtrails".

I provided the briefing for the CFR meeting demonstrating that it did not encourage the use of geoengineering. Evidence (not opinion) that the claim that the CFR encouraged the immediate use of geoengineering is false.

I provided an article from 1970 (long before the alleged "chemtrail" activity began). Evidence (not opinion) that normal contrails can and do persist and spread.

[edit on 4/14/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You quoted someone else, and want me to respond to that?
Quote me if you want to address me.

You have failed to address all of my posts on page 1 and 2 of this thread. You post one link from 1970 and that covers the entire issue?
I think not.

[edit on 14-4-2010 by burntheships]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Lol, what is going on here? Why would someone waste so much time arguing about something he knows so little about? lol, people spend their whole lives dedicated to searching for truth, and a respected member holding drumsticks comes along and screams "Your Wrong, why? cuz i say so!" lol If a skeptic offers no evidence of his own, he is no skeptic, he is just a scared person who wants to be proven wrong. Unfortunately, the only people who shall know, are those who shall seek.

 


personal attack replaced with bolded

[edit on 15/4/10 by masqua]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

Yes, one paper from 1970. Would you like to see the photographs and videos from World War II?


Would you like to see the traffic patterns which create the mysterious "grids"?

Would you like to see that when people report "chemtrails" on ATS, the conditions just happen to be the same conditions that are conducive to contrails?
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Your posts are a collection of statements about efforts which have been considered for use should global warming reach a crisis. You have provided no evidence that "chemtrails" are anything more than persistent contrails. You have provided no evidence that a crisis has been reached. It's easy to put 2 and 2 together to get 5 if you ignore the evidence to the contrary.

You do admit that it is your opinion.

Of course, I believe the mitigation process is well underway,
and agree with Mr. Griffin.


But I prefer evidence.


[edit on 4/14/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


So your argument is to pigeon-hole any aircraft that has ever sprayed chemicals in with conventional aircraft flights simply producing contrails, and assert they are all just contrails right?

What about the Chinese spraying chemicals to manipulate their weather, and openly talking about it and admitting it? If you saw photos of that how would you tell they were legitimate, or would you just pigeon-hole them as contrails too?



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

No. It has nothing to do with contrails.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


What? You respond with a bunch of you tube videos? You know, you cant sit around believing pictures from you tube, you said so yourself! What other proof did you offer? Oh....some other thread from ATS?
Offer up some real proof backing your opinion.
Exactly what are your claims?

I posted solid evidence on page 1 and 2. You fail to address any of it.

~~~~~~

Adding more evidence here:


Interviewed by telephone last week, she said she avoids the term "chemtrails" because of its association with conspiracy theorists -- and the tendency of both government and private individuals to be dismissive of "chemtrail believers."

Peterson prefers "persistent jet contrails" as a moniker of choice and said she has been researching the phenomenon since 2002.

According to Peterson's Web site, www.californiaskywatch.com, a wide variety of lingering jet plumes and man-made clouds are contributing to "global dimming" and modifying weather, among other potential effects.

"These jets have a large share in the responsibility of reducing photosynthesis in plants, increasing humidity (allowing mold, mildews and fungus to proliferate), and altering the growing cycle of plants, trees and crops, which impacts the survival of many plant and animal species," according to the Web site.

Peterson said the phenomenon of persistent contrails can be traced back to the late 1980s or early 1990s. Examples can quickly cover the entire sky and turn into a variety of man-made clouds, all with consistent characteristics and dispersion rates, she said.

Citing a variety of government and other public documents, Peterson now believes some jets are involved in experimental weather modification programs, some of which may use potentially hazardous chemicals.

"What the jets are releasing to produce these man-made clouds, I don't know," she said. "... But when we look at the planes that are flying and leaving the ones that really persist, we can't find the logo of any commercial airline on them, and they're usually not running the same patterns commercial airlines have to run to stay on their flight schedules."

A former U.S. Department of Agriculture crop adjuster, Peterson cites research by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, among others, to indicate that air traffic may be wreaking havoc with natural processes.

According to NASA's Web site, some of the space agency's researchers do think air traffic, including persistent contrails, may have a negative environmental impact. ....

......Peterson also points toward spikes in barium, magnesium, lead, manganese, aluminum, iron, sodium and specific conductance (the ability of water to conduct a charge) in Mendocino County and in other counties throughout California as potential evidence of air-based dispersal of chemicals.

www.reporternews.com...


[edit on 14-4-2010 by burntheships]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
A few things to get straight here:
1. Cloud seeding is NOT chemtrail activity. That sort of weather modification has been done since WWII and is also still unpredictable. It still is done in some countries, like China which doesnt really give a rat's @$$ about its impact on the environment (but thats a topic for another day).

2. Persistent contrails are nothing new and have been seen since the first aircraft that managed to reach the altitude at which these contrails can last fr so long.

3. During WWII persistent contrails from bomber streams and fighters have actually caused missions to be scrubbed due to low visibility due to HEAVY CLOUD COVER covering the area from the contrails. The persistent contrails were very common during these times.

4. Persistent contrails occur most readily when there is a weather front approaching. Usually a warm front but cold fronts as well. The proper temperature gradients and humidity conditions (along with pressures) can be the perfect mix for persistent contrails. Why does it appear that these contrails show up and then the weather changes? Due to the incoming front. Be sure to ask Oz, as he has a lot more info on that.

5. "Chemtrails" have NEVER been confirmed. I'm sorry but looking up at the sky and screaming bloody murder, "CHEMTRAILS!!!!!" is not evidence or proof of "chemtrails" (maybe paranoia but that is up to the psychiatrist) . And saying, "I've been looking at the sky all my life and they are definitely not normal contrails," is also not proof of anything. And then falling into the nonsensical observation: Contrails only last for seconds or couple minutes" is a load of garbage that was first said by a conspiracy theorist who doesnt have a clue to meteorology or the basic earth sciences. (NOTE: This is not a direct comment towards or about anyone here on ATS. This is a direct comment to the first "Chemtrailer" out there on the WWW that started this nonsense. Thanks to his/her willful ignorance this garbage gets repeated ad nauseum.)

The best way to shake off this nonsense is to study meteorology, first things first. Then a little something called common sense. Also critical thinking and rational thinking need to come online as well. Blind regurgitation of nonsense that was read off a conspiracy site that has a track record of being false/wrong/misinformed/lying/etc is not "opening your eyes." That is called shutting off your brain and becoming a blind follower of garbage and half truths. Talk to real meteorologists. Talk to real pilots. You learn a lot when you disconnect yourself from the CT box and then your eyes will be truly opened.

[edit on 4/14/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
No. It has nothing to do with contrails.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


My specific question was: How do you tell the difference?





Each of those contains 50 grams of silver iodine.



What they look like when they fire, and you probably would not be able to see the flame itself from the ground.

Firing in the air:




China doing their own cloud-seeding in preparation for the Olympics:



click

Here's another example of cloud seeding:



addins.wrex.com...


Another one, more obvious this time:



www.gizmag.com...

And they use more than silver iodine to seed clouds, from the same link above:


Presently the most common materials for cloud seeding are dry ice and silver iodide, which has a hexagonal crystalline structure similar to that of ice. Introducing silver iodide into a cloud that contains supercooled water is supposed to induce freezing nucleation, whereas the introduction of dry ice cools the air so much that ice crystal can form spontaneously from the vapor phase. The structure of regular ice is well known at the macroscale with ice structures usually built out of simple hexagonal arrangements of water molecules - this hexagonal building block motif is easily observed in the structures of snowflakes. Ice structures however, are much more mysterious and less well understood at the nanoscale - particularly when ice forms at an interface with matter as is the case in the higher atmosphere with particles of dust. Silver iodide is used because of its hexagonal crystalline structure, but as reported in Nature Materials (March 2009) scientists led by researchers at the London Centre for Nanotechnology (LCN) at UCL have discovered a novel one dimensional ice chain structure built from pentagons showing that ice can build an extended one dimensional chain structure entirely from pentagons and not hexagons.

"This discovery leads to fundamental new understanding about the nature of hydrogen bonding at interfaces (there is no a priori rule that hexagons should form) and suggests that when people are searching for new ice nucleating agents which can be used to seed clouds and cause rain, they do not necessarily need to focus on materials that have hexagonal surfaces - other types of surfaces may be good too," says Dr Michaelides.




So how do you look at a picture of a trail that a plane leaves behind and tell what exactly that trail is made of?

I'm not stupid so I already know the answer: you can't.


They could be spraying anything out of planes. Looking from the ground, and simply expecting someone to tell you about it, is not exactly a fool proof method of determining what is going on.



It's not about having evidence and proving what someone is dropping in the air. It's about people putting things in the air, and we have no way in hell of telling what they are doing. That is why it's a "conspiracy theory," because it's the public being "paranoid" (aka "vigilant") about what is going on in the skies. There is no simple way to tell. From the ground.

[edit on 14-4-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

youtube videos of films made in the 1940's. A youtube video displaying actual air traffic patterns. Not youtube videos of people spouting their opinions and distorting reality.

Funny you should mention the study of contrails and their relationship to climate. That's exactly what that article from the 70's which I linked is about. There has been, and is a lot of study going on about it. But it's not really clear what the net effect contrails may have, if any. There are studies that show that they may increase warming by decreasing radiative cooling at night.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Once again, cloud seeding with silver iodide is not chemtrails.

Also that picture of the 747? That is not a chemtrail aircraft. That is a test of a new firefighting aircraft using a 747 to replace the aging fire tanker fleets. This was a water drop test to see if the system works for putting out forest and brush fires.
www.evergreenaviation.com...

www.evergreenaviation.com...

I can tell you just copied and pasted directly from the "chemtrail" site. That particular picture has been debunked. I wonder why it is still being spread around.

[edit on 4/14/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Once again, cloud seeding with silver iodide is not chemtrails.


I didn't say they were. I asked how you can tell what they are putting in the air, just by looking at photos.

So how do you manage it?



I can tell you just copied and pasted directly from the "chemtrail" site. That particular aircraft has been debunked. I wonder why it is still being spread around.


I take it when you say "that particular aircraft has been debunked" you must be talking about some claim that you will not find in any of my posts here. I actually did a Google image search for cloud seeding images. How completely unexpected of you, of all geniuses, to incorrectly generalize something out of a personal bias.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

That 747 is not cloud seeding. It is a tanker used for fire fighting doing a water dump demonstration.
www.gizmag.com...

That small yellow plane is also a fire fighter. China Briefing got the image from here:
www.istockphoto.com...
Here's more about the Air Tractor:
www.airtractor.com...


How do you tell the difference? Easy. The fire fighters drop their load pretty much all at once. That forth image is of an actual aerial cloud seeding. Notice that the plane is relatively low, no more than 3 or 4 thousand feet above the ground. Notice that the plane is flying right at cloudbase. Notice that the clouds are cumulus clouds. Notice there is no thick trail coming from the seeding flares.

Contrails generally form at altitudes of 25,000 feet and higher. There are no cumulus clouds at that altitude (except for the tops of thunderheads). Cloud seeding operations are restricted to limited areas. Contrails cover hundreds, even thousands of miles. Cloud seeding targets existing cumulus clouds. Big differences.


I have to ask. What good does your "vigilance" do if all it is, is speculation?
Could contrails include some mystery substance? Yes. But logically it makes little sense. The shear amount of additional material involved becomes problematic. The problems involved with keeping is secret are immense. The science behind the method is lacking.

[edit on 4/14/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Alright, since Phage posted videos from decades ago, to try and prove that there is no possibility that there is any aerosol spraying done
currently, I am posting pictures and videos to counter that arguement and demonstrate that it is entirely likely chemical spraying is happening everyday right now, in this decade.



[edit on 15-4-2010 by burntheships]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Forget to mention,

One of the pilots i remember hearing was talking about (modified Water Drops or Something do with water vapor in creating or forming of something which i cant remember i am afraid


[edit on 14-4-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]

[edit on 14-4-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]





new topics




 
49
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join