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: 38
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:30 PM
reply to post by buddhasystem

You pop in here to make a comment about the least important video that I posted and tell some far out story of your personal trip and how you went to whereever you think is clever and expect me too believe you ?

Look at your avatars face for God's sake. LOL
Why is it always the ones who can't even read and can't interpret the documents in evidence. The ones who decide they know it all ?

I really don't care what color the sky was is yours dreams lady. Do you want to know what color my urine was this morning? Please come back when you have a valid point to make regarding the documents I posted.

Is this really the best they have left. All your other contrailscience cult leaders gave up a long time ago. They know when to admit defeat. Why don't you ?

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

It's like talking to myself...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof...exactly why I doubt everything from 911 to the Holocaust and more. I thought I had that proof about chemtrails, but I was mistaken. Again, this only proves that what I thought were chemtrails only existed at times when persistent contrails would be present.

To control the weather effectively with aerosol sprays, they would not be able to hide it.

If they're trying to reduce the population with slow-kill pathogens, spraying is a highly inefficient way to do it. Public water makes much more sense.

Think like a sociopath for a second and you'll see there are many better ways to kill people, and spraying chemtrails only when persistent contrails would form anyway is not an efficient way to control the weather...but they probably get a kick out of watching us argue about this instead of our status as chattel slaves.

Umm....I think you are starting to sound like a sociopath. Obviously you haven't bothered to read the documents either. Have a good time trying to figure out what side of the fence you want to lean towards.

As for me I know chemtrail when I see one......

edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:39 PM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

I thought the same thing...that they couldn't argue with my points so they disappeared. Perspective is a powerful turns out they simply got tired of the circular argument.

I work for law firms, played in a band of lawyers "No Alibi" (groan...we sucked), and my brother's a lawyer...I know a lot of lawyers and they all do the same thing when they take a case to court. They prepare for a case by trying to argue from the perspective of the opposition. You need to do the same.

Just google "sounding data" and "Appleman chart".
edit on 2-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:42 PM

The CCHHG is charged by the USGCRP with planning, coordinating, implementing, evaluating, and reporting on Federal research and related activities that expand the scientific and technical knowledge base regarding the human health impacts of global environmental change, focusing specifically on climate variability and change. The CCHHG seeks to integrate relevant science and technology programs and capabilities through interagency, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental collaborations that span a continuum from basic research to decisionmaking to application, with the ultimate goal of building more resilient communities. This group also serves as a pilot to inform future USGCRP efforts.
Although membership is limited to representatives of Federal agencies, the CCHHG intends to fully engage relevant stakeholders as appropriate, to inform prioritization of research needs, increase understanding of potential health impacts in various sectors, and increase coordination with on-the-ground public health applications at the regional, state, local, and tribal levels through mechanisms such as workshops and listening sessions.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:44 PM

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

As for me I know chemtrail when I see one......

edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

Care to test that claim? I used to think the same, but now I'm not so sure. You can put it to a test if you're really honest about learning the truth. You're not afraid of losing your conviction are you? Don't want to end up being "not so certain", like me? At least I know how to verify.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:48 PM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

There's a lot of gobbledygook written about commercially viable nuclear energy too, and how they can destroy the world a gazillion times over.

Shamans and priests (like professors and scientists) have used these tactics for generations with the intent of keeping their "flocks" fearful and trusting them to protect them from scary things the sheep can't possibly understand.

You're a smart guy, learn to speak their language to figure out if they're full of sh!te.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:50 PM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

"Chemtrails" is another word that describes "persistent contrails"

That explains everything. You think that persistent contrails are "chemtrails." What qualities do you suppose these contrails have other than duration that makes them so different from other contrails to justify calling them "chemtrails?"

What do you think DJW001 is he pre pubescent teen may be slightly older SORRY WE HAVE HEARD your type of CHEMTRAIL BS for longer than you have been alive AND GUESS WHAT NOTHING HAS HAPPENED!

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:57 PM
reply to post by Yankee451

Thank you but I prefer to keep reading from the relevant documents that I am currently reading from. There's no need for me to conduct my own tests or fact check the data. If you would ever decide to stop typing and read the documents as I suggested each time for the last 5 posts or so. Then you would see that the proof has already been collected and published for each year the recent studies have been being conducted under the US Global Change Research Program.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Here is the link to the site page that has the other reports like this from 2004 until now. The report I was using was from 2009. There are 8 reports like this one in total available at this link available in pdf or html

2004-2005 report
2006 report
2007 report
2008 report
2009 report
2010 report pdf only
2011 report pdf only

Notice the legal disclaimer attached to these documents....
This document describes the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) for FY 2009. It provides a summary of the achievements of the program, an analysis of the progress made, and budgetary information. It thereby responds to the annual reporting requirements of the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Section 102, P. L. 101-606). It does not express any regulatory policies of the United States or any of its agencies, or make any findings of fact that could serve as predicates for regulatory action. Agencies must comply with required statutory and regulatory processes before they could rely on any statements in this document or by the CCSP as a basis for regulatory action.


posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:01 PM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

If I tell you I read those documents and many more, would you believe me? Would that convince you to double check your work?

Thanks for your time, and good luck to you.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:06 PM
reply to post by wmd_2008

Do any of you genius's know what anthropogenic aerosol means ?

You should I already posted the definition.


posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:09 PM
reply to post by Yankee451

Yeah sure you read them.
All 1000 plus pages right ?

edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:17 PM

The simulations were not performed using a
full methane cycle, but the methane response
to the imposed perturbations can be estimated
by examining the changes in methane’s oxidation rate. In these simulations, methane was
prescribed at present-day values. Thus any
change in methane oxidation is due solely to
changes in the abundance of oxidizing agents.
The difference in the steady-state abundance
of methane that would occur as a result of this
oxidation change is a simple calculation
([CH4/′[[CH4] = L/L′
for the global mean where L is
the methane loss rate and the “prime” notation
indicates the adjusted amounts). Use of the
model’s oxidation rate in the perturbation runs
fully captures spatial and seasonal variations,
and thus provides an accurate estimate of the
equilibrium response of methane to the emissions changes. Finally, the radiative forcing
resulting from these indirect methane changes
is calculated using the standard formulation
(Ramaswamy et al., 2001)[

Further work is required to more
thoroughly characterize the robustness of these conclusions
across a larger number of models,
to explore the impact of particle
indirect effects on clouds, and to
examine alternative emissions
scenarios considering changes in
the mix of sources constituting a
given sector and the influence of
potential technological changes.
The latter could be designed
to reduce emissions of particular pollutants,
while not affecting others. Our results for the
radiative forcing from individual gases and
particles give an idea of the potential impact of
such technologies. However, we note that these
technologies could also have effects on overall
fuel consumption by altering the efficiency of
a particular process.

edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:42 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:53 PM

1st Session

H. R. 2977
To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.

October 2, 2001

Mr. KUCINICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


Mod Edit: External Source Tags Please Review This Link.
edit on 3-3-2011 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:55 PM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

I didn't claim to have read them; I did ask you a question though. Can you tell me what that question was?

I've been a firm believer in chemtrails for about a decade, becoming furious about it over the last few years when my blue skies of summer disappeared, so spare me your superior-sounding tripe. You're preaching to the choir little fella and you're not impressing me with your cut and paste skills.

The only folks I know who have blind faith are religious folks, and you're sounding pretty dogmatic, but don't let me stop you. If you can't prove yourself right to yourself, you'll prove nothing to anyone else.

edit on 2-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:01 PM
Latest Title: Space Preservation Act of 2001
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] (introduced 10/2/2001) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 4/19/2002 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Unfavorable Executive Comment Received from DOD.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:06 PM
reply to post by Yankee451

There it is ... I even put it in bold letters...In senate bill.HR 2977 the word Chemtrail was placed on a list of weapons to be banned. The result of the bill was unfavorable.

Proof ?

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:08 PM
I'll be back later.............Have fun

edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:30 PM

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Yankee451

There it is ... I even put it in bold letters...In senate bill.HR 2977 the word Chemtrail was placed on a list of weapons to be banned. The result of the bill was unfavorable.

Proof ?

Hearsay, just like everything you don't experience first hand. Did you give yourself your name? No? Hearsay.

I've quoted the DoD and the Airforce too...they have probably been involved in weather modification experiments for some time based on their quotes. Your cut and paste fever proves they had the means, motive and opportunity...which is sufficient to prove valid suspicion, but you are claiming you would recognize such an experiment if you saw one.

I claimed the same. I swore I witnessed it in action...but it turns out I was wrong. I don't think you can tell the difference, if there is a difference. However if you can tell, prove it.

Find a chemtrail in the sky. Photograph it and note the time. Check scheduled flights and their altitudes. Check the atmospheric conditions for those flights. If conditions are not met for persistence, you win. If you find non-scheduled flights who's altitudes and flight paths cannot be verified, you might be onto something.

But if conditions were there for persistence, you MAY have seen a chemtrail, but you can't be certain without going up to altitude and scooping up a sample.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:47 PM
reply to post by Draken

A possibility to be sure...but of course you would have to also prove that there is a significant change in contrail activity over time, something which I am convinced is not the case, due to my personal experience (I get into this deeper in another comment on this thread). Lets assume for arguments sake you are correct. In order to reflect sunlight, they would not necessarily need anything but normal contrails. Anything white and fluffy like a cloud should do the trick. (technically contrails are artificially created clouds of water vapor). No added chemicals would be needed. Also how long they last has more to do with the height of the plane and environmental factors....if they wanted long lasting contrails, they could simply adjust for these, by flying at different heights or even different times of day.

new topics

top topics

<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in