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.

 

Another Chemtrail Question

page: 9
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Just wondering if this was about the pics posted earlier?



Niiiiice shots! I guess I would need to know the temperature and the altitude, wind direction, time of year, day and such. Yeah, that's the sort of heavy coverage I noticed several years ago. All seasons, time of year, didn't matter, I could even see the heavy coverage between the clouds on cloudy days


You really didn't mention what pics you are commenting on.




posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


The tankers are examples of the existence of weather modification. Stop trying to use them to prove anything else.


No, they are not.

Companies that do "weather modification" which is seeding of snow/rain storms with silver iodide, use small planes to do it. There is no reason to do it with a 747 type aircraft, and no evidence that it has been done.

Those planes cost lots of money, and they would offer it to a customer that wants to hire it. But the agencies that hire airplanes for cloud seeding, could never afford a 747 anyways



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by firepilot
 


I have doubts.

Your certitude, and your trust are unfounded.


Sure you do. But are your doubts based on reason, logic and knowledge, or did your doubts start because you read a chemtrail website? Do you have evidence that backs up your views, or is it perceptions shaped by conspiracy sites?

And have you tried to learn more about it by learning more about the weather, about aviation, about aircraft and how aircraft navigate? Or is your learning more about it, just visiting more conspiracy websites?

If there was so much overwhelming evidence, then why do so many chemtrailers use edited pictures, or take videos and claim they are something else than what they actuallly are?

You would be happy with us if we did not share our knowledge, and just told you what you wanted to hear..



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


all of yours...very nice. Thank you.

Are they from the 20th century?



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


I think we crossed posts here...

I'm trying to play the devils advocate here...I mean I'll admit I like a sparring match too, but I'm also trying to get you to see that we both should have reason for doubt.

So what if the first time it hit the blogosphere was 1999? Would this be the first time the intelligence services planted a hoax story? Don't tell Roswell, they've got a thriving tourism business thanks to that. It is what they do, set up false leads...it is what I would do if I was in their shoes. I am well aware this could be a hoax, after 911, I assume I'm being played...but I can't deny I've seen a difference in the sky. and I see the government benefits most from this hoax, not a few conspiracy web sites. 911 took care of that.

Wouldn't you try to disguise a covert weather program as persistent contrails?

No, I didn't coin the phrase, or discover the phenomenon, plus I am fallible, and I'm trying to double check my work bit you guys refuse to do the same, and I mean no offense but that smacks of dogma, which is where the indoctrination thing comes to play. How can anyone trust a government that is still hunting Pakistani wedding parties thanks to 911?



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 





all of yours...very nice. Thank you. Are they from the 20th century?


Thanks and I guess I should tell you that things aren't what they seem. I say that because you just proved that you cannot tell the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail, because the pics I posted are 100% contrails. In fact you can see more like these at....

flickrhivemind.net...

So, how do you know what your seeing is a chemtrail and not a contrail? And before I forget yes they are from the 20th century. And since you liked those here are a few more for you.Enjoy...







and a favorite of mine..




posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


So if you saw a chemtrail disguised as a contrail you couldn't tell the difference?



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


evergreenair.com...


Yep - so who where they say they do weather modification?

the actual mention of it on that page is:


MARKETS:

• Firefighting
• Oil Spill Containment
• Weather Modification
• Biochemical Decontamination



So weather modification is a market for its services - I said that.

Now can you show me where they ahve ever done it?

And of course there is a difference between weather modification and climate modification....but if you can't understand that offering your services from someone to use isn't teh ame as doing something then that subtlety is probably lsot on you too!

For the record - weather modification is cloud seeding. They say the tanker can be used for cloud seeding. That would then be the people who hired hte aircraft doing the weather modification, using Evergreen's aircraft to accomplish it.

Why would Evergreen offer their aircraft for this? For money of course - a 747 is a bloody expensive a/c to maintain in airworthy condition, and they will lease it to anyone who thinks they can make use of it - even you if you paid up.

That's what they do - they hire aircraft to people who have a need for the aircraft - weather modification is a market hwere they would love to hire their aircraft to, so they say it is available for it.

But they don't actually do it themselves.
edit on 20-2-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: crappy typing



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 





So if you saw a chemtrail disguised as a contrail you couldn't tell the difference?


That is a funny question, because they are the same thing minus the "chem" part. As with many other threads on pretty much the same thing the evidence is easily shown that contrails are misidentified as "chemtrails". Why not check these threads out...If you have then disregard but if not you should...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So there are even more in the skunk works section of ATS.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


So are you saying I'm just plain silly for investigating it?



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


It's funny, we're back to that...is it any wonder I called this a circus...not that I ever would again, but come on...I SUSPECT I may have seen weather modification in action and I am looking for proof as part of a humble investigation.

All any of you are arguing about is my justification for being suspicious!

Are you telling me it is an unfounded suspicion? If so, why?

So far all you've been able to come up with can be boiled down to "Jets leave contrails, therefore everything you've described is a contrail", and trying to focus on Evergreen. These things work against you though...I am not the one advertising weather modification with only one plane, it's not my problem you don't agree they think they can modify the weather, it is only an example that the technology exists.

"It hasn't been done" doesn't mean anything. Ever heard of "there's always a first time"? If someone with the means, motive and opportunity had been writing that they'd like to change the weather, and then we notice strange weather, what am I supposed to do, chew my cud? Stare at the asphalt?

You guys are smart guys. You know new technology doesn't just "appear". 15 years ago the Secretary of Defense was sure "terrorists" could create earthquakes, storms, etc. Does the US military ever let anyone have supremacy? Would they not try to take the lead in technology they thought was a threat to national security?

Would it not take time to develop such technology?

Testing would need to be done, and people may notice, so a cover story would need to be in place. All you'd need are real pilots to do what they do and let em rip. If what I saw was a clandestine military weather experiment, for such a massive project to be able to fly under the radar, I would think pilots would need to be none the wiser.

It is reasonable to suspect a covert weather modification program.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


It's funny, we're back to that...is it any wonder I called this a circus...not that I ever would again, but come on...I SUSPECT I may have seen weather modification in action and I am looking for proof as part of a humble investigation.


fine - well so far you haven't shown us any proof via this site, and we've shown you lots of reasons why it is unlikely to be what you fear.


All any of you are arguing about is my justification for being suspicious!

Are you telling me it is an unfounded suspicion? If so, why?


Have you missed the last few pages of discussion??]



So far all you've been able to come up with can be boiled down to "Jets leave contrails, therefore everything you've described is a contrail", and trying to focus on Evergreen.


I haven't focused on Evergreen - I've only mentioned it in response to you saying they are doing weather modification. Many people have suggested that Evergreens super-tanker is evidence of the chemtrail conspiracy, but, like you, they can't actuyally show how or why.


These things work against you though...I am not the one advertising weather modification with only one plane, it's not my problem you don't agree they think they can modify the weather, it is only an example that the technology exists.


Of course hte technology exists - there's a company called Weather Modification Inc that do it world wide - it's been known about for 60 years of more - are you seriously telling us all this is about cloud seeding??


"It hasn't been done" doesn't mean anything. Ever heard of "there's always a first time"? If someone with the means, motive and opportunity had been writing that they'd like to change the weather, and then we notice strange weather, what am I supposed to do, chew my cud? Stare at the asphalt?


Look for evidence that it actually is being done, and at evidence that "strange weather" isn't actually so strange, check out alternative hypothesese and see what eth evidence is for them all spring to mind.


You guys are smart guys. You know new technology doesn't just "appear". 15 years ago the Secretary of Defense was sure "terrorists" could create earthquakes, storms, etc. Does the US military ever let anyone have supremacy? Would they not try to take the lead in technology they thought was a threat to national security?


i can't imagine why they wouldn't - do yuo have any idea?


Would it not take time to develop such technology?


sure


Testing would need to be done, and people may notice, so a cover story would need to be in place. All you'd need are real pilots to do what they do and let em rip. If what I saw was a clandestine military weather experiment, for such a massive project to be able to fly under the radar, I would think pilots would need to be none the wiser.


Like you said...."if".

your trouble is that you have started with the premis that this is weather modification, and see everything in erms of confirming it.

I look at contrails and think they've been like that since at least 1940, and what is it that is different about them now?

Waht I find it the only difference is that there are more of them When I ask why I find that here are 10 times as many large commercial jets flying now as there were in 1960, and they are flying higher and further and more often and with more effeicient engines.

From that I conclude that the most likely explaination is that more contrails are the result of more aircraft and aircraft activity.


It is reasonable to suspect a covert weather modification program.


Suspecting something initially is fine.

however once you have found no evidence for it whatsoever, and a plethora of evidence for another explaination that has a history of 70+ years and a heap of science explaining it, then it is no longer reasonable to suspect it. Then it becomes nutcase paranoia.

edit on 20-2-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: fix quoting error



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


It's funny, we're back to that...is it any wonder I called this a circus...not that I ever would again, but come on...I SUSPECT I may have seen weather modification in action and I am looking for proof as part of a humble investigation.

All any of you are arguing about is my justification for being suspicious!

Are you telling me it is an unfounded suspicion? If so, why?

So far all you've been able to come up with can be boiled down to "Jets leave contrails, therefore everything you've described is a contrail", and trying to focus on Evergreen. These things work against you though...I am not the one advertising weather modification with only one plane, it's not my problem you don't agree they think they can modify the weather, it is only an example that the technology exists.

"It hasn't been done" doesn't mean anything. Ever heard of "there's always a first time"? If someone with the means, motive and opportunity had been writing that they'd like to change the weather, and then we notice strange weather, what am I supposed to do, chew my cud? Stare at the asphalt?

You guys are smart guys. You know new technology doesn't just "appear". 15 years ago the Secretary of Defense was sure "terrorists" could create earthquakes, storms, etc. Does the US military ever let anyone have supremacy? Would they not try to take the lead in technology they thought was a threat to national security?

Would it not take time to develop such technology?

Testing would need to be done, and people may notice, so a cover story would need to be in place. All you'd need are real pilots to do what they do and let em rip. If what I saw was a clandestine military weather experiment, for such a massive project to be able to fly under the radar, I would think pilots would need to be none the wiser.

It is reasonable to suspect a covert weather modification program.




yes, it is an unfounded suspicion. You would never been suspicious, except for chemtrail sites suggesting to you that if a contrail is irregular or long lasting, then its something sinister.

There is no regular contrail and irregular contrail. The appearance of a contrail indicates favorablility of the conditions for contrail persistence. There are even charts for this, combat aircraft get briefed on this so that the can avoid flying at altitudes where they could be more prominent.

You really are not so much investigating anything, as you are looking for agreement and validation of your suspicions. Your "investigating" has not resulted in more knowledge, just more suspicions. When you make statements like it was hot on the ground, so how could there be contrails, indicates a serious lack of any attempt to learn.

There is no secret fleet of aircraft, there are no secret bases. Every time chemmies make these allegations and try and prove it, its laughably wrong and does not stand up the the slightest scrutiny. You know how many times chemmies have put up photos claiming its their smoking gun, and its anything but? They never actually admit to bring wrong, either they disappear, or just call everyone names who told them what it really was.

There has not been any major change in the skies, just people read something and never thought to look at the sky much before. What you are saying about the sky being different now than from 2005, people in 2005 said compared to 2000. People in 2000 said it was different than from 1995.

Basically, people read a chemtrail site and thought it was different than it was a few years before, because a chemtrail site told them.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 

Unfounded suspicion?
Chemtrails are not an "unfounded suspicion".
How do you define "unfounded"?
For some reason (your posting history), I suspect that "unfounded" means that you don't agree with all of those other professionals out there that have gathered data that suggests that there indeed IS "founded"....suspicion.

But, perhaps I give YOU too much credit. I really don't know that YOU are a professional at anything at all.

But, the "unfounded" ones that take the time to put their actual name to their work can't really defend themselves against a "firepilot" now can they? But, you don't hesitate to slander their name?

Real admirable.

Need I bring sources for those that you have slandered?



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


Oh by all means....yes, I'm jumping in but....really, Stewie, you have been THOROUGHLY educated on this many many times already!!!:


Need I bring sources for those that you have slandered?


By all means, display your "arsenal"....I have a vague suspicion it will resemble efforts of yours in the past, though. Old ground, eh??



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by firepilot
 

Unfounded suspicion?
Chemtrails are not an "unfounded suspicion".
How do you define "unfounded"?
For some reason (your posting history), I suspect that "unfounded" means that you don't agree with all of those other professionals out there that have gathered data that suggests that there indeed IS "founded"....suspicion.

But, perhaps I give YOU too much credit. I really don't know that YOU are a professional at anything at all.

But, the "unfounded" ones that take the time to put their actual name to their work can't really defend themselves against a "firepilot" now can they? But, you don't hesitate to slander their name?

Real admirable.

Need I bring sources for those that you have slandered?


Sure thing, right when you find us those 600 new tankers too that you claimed.

And as for the "slander" in which you probably meant LIBEL since it is not oral, go for it. I stand behind every statement and post I make. I have said multiple times, that if you can find incorrect statements, then correct me. All you can do is call names of anyone who disagrees with your chemtrail religion, and especially when people correct you on your falsehoods, which there have been many. People correct you time and time again, and instead of saying thank you, you just find more names to call.

edit on 20-2-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-2-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


man...I can't break up the quotes like you guys, still a newbie...


If our discussion is about the validity of my suspicion, how do you figure I need any more "proof" to justify suspicion than what I've provided? It is not rhetorical that I say after 911, I'm shocked that you're NOT suspicious about anything, not just this, but again I understand pilots go through a lot of indoct...er...training. Want me to keep repeating the reasons why I believe the Air Force and Secretary Cohen as opposed to you?

I must have missed your answers in the previous discussion, my apologies, I'm trying bat down the same straw men from five different angles, please be patient.

I'm only listing Evergreen because they only have one tanker and they say they can modify the weather with it. Are you saying this is not true? Please be as concise as possible.

You said:
"Of course hte technology exists - there's a company called Weather Modification Inc that do it world wide - it's been known about for 60 years of more - are you seriously telling us all this is about cloud seeding??"

Are you seriously telling me you think Secretary Cohen was worried about cloud seeding?

You said:
"Look for evidence that it actually is being done, and at evidence that "strange weather" isn't actually so strange, check out alternative hypothesese and see what eth evidence is for them all spring to mind."

The hypothesis comes before searching for supporting evidence, not the other way around. I have checked other hypotheses, and so far I've found the evidence has fit the hypothesis of a clandestine weather modification program quite well. I really don't see what's so controversial about it, especially if modification has been all the rage for decades, and I really don't see how you can insist it's beyond suspicion with even the meager examples I've provided.

You said:
"your trouble is that you have started with the premis that this is weather modification, and see everything in erms of confirming it."

This is not true. My premise is that I suspect weather modification and I'm looking for supporting evidence. Thanks for what you've provided, it's clear pilots wouldn't be able to recognize clandestine spraying at altitude any more than even the least-trained lay person. Again, I find your lack of even a shadow of a doubt pretty dogmatic.

"Waht I find it the only difference is that there are more of them When I ask why I find that here are 10 times as many large commercial jets flying now as there were in 1960, and they are flying higher and further and more often and with more effeicient engines.

From that I conclude that the most likely explaination is that more contrails are the result of more aircraft and aircraft activity."

And what would you conclude if something that had become so heavy as to block sunny days for several years suddenly stopped? No wait, I know...it's all in my imagination because of some conspiracy site I read this on. I say you don't know what you're talking because you're basing your argument on blind faith and baseless trust. If anyone other than an over-confident pilot is reading this thread we'll let them decide.

"however once you have found no evidence for it whatsoever, and a plethora of evidence for another explaination that has a history of 70+ years and a heap of science explaining it, then it is no longer reasonable to suspect it. Then it becomes nutcase paranoia."

I haven't gotten to that point yet, but thanks for the heads up. I know all about the nutcase paranoid types, I'm sure most of you are right up there with WeedWhacker.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Stewie
 


Oh by all means....yes, I'm jumping in but....really, Stewie, you have been THOROUGHLY educated on this many many times already!!!:


Need I bring sources for those that you have slandered?


By all means, display your "arsenal"....I have a vague suspicion it will resemble efforts of yours in the past, though. Old ground, eh??



knew something like that was coming...self inflicted wounds are the worst.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


That libel\slander thing used to throw me for a loop too, don't let the guys bring you down, just remember libel is like library = written. Not sure what you're talking about though, but I do get you about the reasonable suspicion part. These guys do like to dig in their heels, that's for sure.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Hi...Reading your posts, I live in an area in Northern CA, where we are the lucky recipients who get to be the Guinea Pigs for PG&E's test site for there cloud seeding machines. 23 just around our little Lake alone! All located on private property, so naturally it is not regulated. I recently read that 400 (#'s) pounds of silver iodine is being used per seeding project here. Tissue samples from our local fish are something that is not desired, nor would you even think about eating them with soars oozing all over them, yum yum. Our Community is 2nd in California with a Cancer rate of about 8900 to 20,000. Residents total. Nice, huh. Chemtrails are the least of our worries; it's these huge corporations that are playing with Mother Nature that we really have to worry about. Our last snow, 2/14, 2/15, 2/16 - 19th, 2011, was the weirdest snow I've witnessed in all my years here. Power was knocked out for 6 days, and this snow will not come out of the pines trees. Just these big huge clumps of frozen ice with a distinct redish tint more on the pink side and sometimes a blueish color, not at all normal. I'm here, I'm living this, and there is more to this than anyone is being told about. It's sick.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join