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.


Is ATS Supporting Ignorance Concerning Chemtrails? I think so.

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:48 PM
reply to post by kdog1982

Been there done that , yup. Back in the late 90 s here in northern Michigan I watched chem trails almost daily criss cross our skys and DR. offices were inundated with complaints of sinus infections that would last many weeks and were very hard to cure.

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:53 PM
Well,then maybe because all my family,excluding me cause I refuse,
got flu shots.

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:58 PM
Is there a post on here about flu shots?
Because I do not believe in giving out antibiotics
and what ever,but can't covience the wife otherwise.
Maybe why they allways get sick and I don't.
I dunno

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:20 PM
I've found myself getting a bit frustrated as well with the attitude toward chemtrail topics. Why should the chemtrail theories get spat on? We often have the main page littered with much less credible topics and annoying prediction threads. I don't see how the topic of chemtrails is any more ludicrous than topics on Niburu, birthers, UFO's, mind control, moon bases, etc. Half the stuff discussed in the ATS shows are just as or more speculative. Clearly there is enough interest and enough threads on the issue to, at the very least, keep it out of the skunk works forum. When you actually go to the skunk works forum and check out the other threads in there, most of which are non-reoccurring topics, it seems unfair to lump all chemtrail threads in with that.

Chemtrails have been discussed by congressmen. There are documentaries on chemtrails. It doesn't really fit into the "purely speculative" category. I, for one, support the idea of having a chemtrail forum, or at least find a better home for it... maybe Fragile Earth or even Aircraft Projects. I truly just don't understand the bias toward the subject.

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:27 PM
Of coare there chemtails they been spraying clorine into the upper atomphere to repair the big hole in ozone depletion thats old news

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:28 PM
reply to post by dplum517've torpedoed yourself, in your own OP.

....they are in bloody "House Resolution Bill 2977.

Seems still stuck in a rut, source-wise, eh??

I have a pretty good memory of recalling specifically informing, multiple times, the OP the facts regarding the (not in existence) "House Bill 2977". Over and over....and the response?? Shouts of "disinfo agents!"

Little wonder this topic is deemed not worthy of serious consideration....the only ones who advocate for it are either woefully misinformed, refuse to GET informed and educated, and repeatedly fall for the hype that this HOAX uses to keep itself going.

There is a reason that threads about a man named "Billy Meier" are in the Hoax Forum much so that the Forum is graced with his photograph. A very well-known, and by now undeniable long-time charlatan, in a different field (UFOs)....BUT, this one too has its crazies, who try to cross-pollinate the "chem"-trail hysteria (and hoax) with fantastic and outlandish references to "aliens" as well.

(NOT the case in this OP, I realize....just illustrating the extent to which this topic attracts various fringe elements).

As to many of the less "crazy-sounding" notions?? Each and EVERY time they are able to be disputed with facts, science, logic and reason....and there exists NO evidence of any of the myriad claims that infest the many, many websites devoted to this nonsense. For, the notion of (whatever....they cannot even agree, amongst themselves) some "grand, secret activity" is beyond the pale of ridiculous, once you understand how epic in scope it would have to be IF were being carried out (whatever the latest "chem" theory du jour...hard to keep up, the goalposts move constantly..).

Oh yes....the "House Bill 2977"?? There was a reason I mentioned the "alien" angle above....some people who have that "opinion" were the ones responsible for slipping some of that language into that initial draft....a draft that was never finalized, because Sen. Kucinich (or someone on his staff) caught on to the subterfuge in time, and yanked it, trashed it, and re-wrote a now proper Bill for submission to the legislature.

The ONLY ones promoting this false story are the aforementioned "chem"-trail loony websites. THEY are the real "disinfo" agents.

Same goes with the breathless "connections" to patents....more ignorance and fear mongering being spread, by the same charlatans (and, incredibly, a huge number of just gullible, non-comprehending people.

To see why this OP is a non-starter:

Story of HR 2977


So what really happened? In a nutshell, Kucinich did not write the bill (or read it, until too late), the focus of the bill is nothing to do with chemtrails, it was written by UFO enthusiasts trying to:

  • Nullify a vast conspiracy by the “military-industrial complex”
  • Allow the use of suppressed alien technology for free energy
  • Avoid accidentally shooting down (or scaring away) visiting aliens.

The "chem"-trails baloney keeps getting recycled, as more people spread the same lies and pseudo-scientific claptrap all over the Internet...and, seems that there continue to be no shortage of gullible people to fall for it.

Here is an ATS thread, from 2004!!! Nearly seven years ago, and the OP here lays it out nicely:

The Chemtrail Hoax

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:36 PM
I say hear all sides of a story before drawing a conclusion -

I'm not on board with the wildest of theories, but I do listen to all parties of an argument. I think we should all do the same in fairness.

If ATS has written off Chemtrails as a Hoax or a Non-Topic, then give them equal respect. I know there is evidence for geo-engineering, not so much for the counter-claim. Keep up the good fight.

+1 more 
posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:36 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

But you also believe the 9/11 OS fairy tale weed..
You either think your government is perfect or you're a part of it..
What more can I say..

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:39 PM

Originally posted by laterallateral
reply to post by dplum517

I think you're advocating ignorance and the wasting of people's valuable time and cerebral resources in promoting a theory who's supporting arguments consist entirely of deliberate misinterpretations, logical fallacies, intuition and the ability to determine the precise chemical composition of airplane exhaust at 40,000 ft based on eyesight alone.
edit on 23-2-2011 by laterallateral because: (no reason given)

I am sorry,but that EXCUSE could be used for the ridiculous amount of threads and eye witness accounts of people seeing UFO's. Not to say that UFO's arnt real,because Unidentified are just that,Unidentified. Same goes for chemtrails. Without real,tangible proof,hardcore factual data, both of these should be tossed into the Hoax bin,along with the conspiracy's of Obamas birth certificate,faces on Mars,Niburu,Unicorns,Bigfoot,Loch Ness,9/11 conspiracy,Peak Oil,Global Warming,Global Cooling,etc.........Thinking that way,of course.

Tell those pilots who have seen UFO's at30000 feet, they are full of deliberate misinterpretations,logical fallacies,intuition,and their ability to determine the lights that they see,and say are STRUCTURED craft,based on eyesight alone,were false. See where that gets you......

Star and Flag...

edit on 23-2-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:54 PM

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by weedwhacker

But you also believe the 9/11 OS fairy tale weed..
You either think your government is perfect or you're a part of it..
What more can I say..

False dilemma.
Keep 'em coming.

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:08 AM
reply to post by sonnny1

I agree that my description can apply to to a great, vast amount of what passes for a UFO theory, these days.
This however, does not summarize the entire body of evidence in support of UFOs.

The difference is that our best pieces of UFO evidence demonstrate something that cannot be identified where as the chemtrail theory resides solely on the assumption that something that is very well understood is not what it appears to be on entirely speculative grounds.

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:10 AM
US and Canada agreementIn 1975, the US and Canada entered into an agreement under the auspices of the United Nations for the exchange of information on weather modification activity.[18]

[edit] 1977 UN Environmental Modification ConventionMain article: Environmental Modification Convention
Weather control, particularly hostile weather warfare, was addressed by the "United Nations General Assembly Resolution 31/72, TIAS 9614 Convention[19] on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques" was adopted. The Convention was: Signed in Geneva May 18, 1977; Entered into force October 5, 1978; Ratification by U.S. President December 13, 1979; U.S. ratification deposited at New York January 17, 1980.[20]

You don't make UN rules for pretend objects or sisuations, if you had the proof, posted it, the information and you would disappear like a chemtrail, they have sprayed people before with bio weapon's, women children nothing new, that's why they have top secret patent's. You would kill them if you found out half the stuff they do to people.

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:13 AM
there is definitely control here - not sure if it is for the good of the public or not. Threads are going missing here and half way through reading them I see them disappear.
after 14 years the chemtrails are making it to prime time TV. Maybe ATS will follow suit in in couple of years.

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:15 AM
reply to post by laterallateral

But there is no body of EVIDENCE of UFO's. If so, Please provide link,or proof. They are both the same,with the analogy you have brought to the table. No conjecture,or eyewitness accounts please...............

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:18 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

And here you are. What would a Chemtrail thread be without the illogical skeptic. MISS the point of everything. It's a bill with a number isn't it? Drafted by a politician...

Dude just stop where you are at now. You couldn't even go one single post without linking your BS website (contrailscience) .....ahahahahahahahahah

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:23 AM
VERY interesting topic!
stereologist should come forward once again with BS ...
Not to wonder beeing a gov disinf...


Is it really "something stinky" in the middle regarding this BIG PROBLEM > CHEMTRAILS?

Guess this video summs it all :


posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:41 AM
reply to post by sonnny1

Proof and evidence aren't to be confused. A picture of something flying that cannot be identified is

Radar data of something in the sky that cannot be accounted for is again, evidence of something unaccounted for.
Catch my drift?

We compile evidence to form theories. With enough evidence we can prove a theory.

Where is the evidence in support of a "chemtrail" theory?

- There are persistent contrails in the sky.
- Recently there has been more of them.

That is all. The rest is just (sometimes deliberately) misinterpreted information, logical fallacies, speculative arguments and claims made outside of the scientific arena.

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:45 AM
reply to post by laterallateral

oh drop it!
Just go YOURSELF and take samples of air , water , soil , plants , HUMAN HAIR from whatever region of this EARTH you whant and MEASURE THE ALUMINUM , BARIUM AND STRONTIUM LEVELS!
You'll shut up instantly , and become one of the "anti-chemtrails fan" !
That is , if you're not "one of the gov disinf" ...

watch this :

What in the World Are They Spraying? (Full Length)

edit on 24-2-2011 by leaualorin because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:49 AM
reply to post by leaualorin

Burden of proof falls upon you my friend.
I'm not the one running around thinking the government is slowly trying to kill me in the most noneffective, inaccurate, commercially unsustainable way imaginable.

I'll just go about my day, thanks.

edit on 24-2-2011 by laterallateral because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:59 AM
reply to post by leaualorin

The crux of the argument of this documentary you posted resides on misinterpreted data.
The information was officially corrected in 2008. Your documentary was made in 2010.
This either betrays a terminal, inexcusable lack of research on the part of the film makers or a deliberate attempt to disinform.

Furthermore, the figurehead of the documentary is in the business of crop loss adjusting (that's insurance, BTW)
Not only does that not put her in any position to be authoritatively making the claims she is making but it also puts her in a situation of financial gain in advocating the notion that chemtrailing is resulting in failed crops.

edit on 24-2-2011 by laterallateral because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in