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: 42
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:40 AM
reply to post by bekod

There was. It didn't get anywhere. Apparently Kucinich hadn't really paid much attention to what was in it when he introduced the bill.

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:47 AM
reply to post by Phage
It makes you wonder how they get that far in office , wonder if "trialing" goes up on vetoing day

it was a good bill, do you think it was written in a way to fail? just asking

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:50 AM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
i hate to do this to you but where is the link??? like to see for my self before i say one way or another. regarding this... 2.3. Assessments of Aerosol Characterization
and Climate Forcing

edit on 3-3-2011 by bekod because: got link to work

edit on 3-3-2011 by bekod because: editting

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:59 AM
reply to post by bekod

I already tried to show them this one too. They blew it off with more false statements and links to their favorite website that they love to quote from so much. Nothing seems to make them want to pull out their little guidebook of what to say more than a document they have had 10 years preparing statements for.

They have prepared their answers for almost all the real and factual based documentation and evidence that exists.
Too bad nothing of what they keep trying to pass off really has any quality non-bias evidence to substantiate what their contrailscience handbook says. They will try to quote and link the other obvious co-conspirators sites.

Whenever someone wants to step up to the plate and openly examine the documents I supplied for evaluation..Maybe then we'll get to actually see a real discussion on this topic. Until then I'll be waiting

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:05 AM
reply to post by bekod

Main homepage for website Doc File

Other reports

Other reports

More detailed data reports of the studies
edit on 3-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:12 AM

Strategic Planning
The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) has been guided over time by the following strategic plans:
2008: Revised Research Plan: An Update to the 2003 Strategic Plan
2003: Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
1989: Our Changing Planet: The FY 1990 Research Plan [pdf]
1989: Our Changing Planet: A U.S. Strategy for Global Change Research [pdf]
The USGCRP is currently assessing strategic directions for the future. It is engaging the scientific community and stakeholders in this process.
The program has undertaken a series of "listening sessions" with a variety of stakeholder groups around the country to gain a better understanding of the emerging needs for climate information and ways in which federal research might be shaped to meet those needs. The program and its member departments and agencies have also commissioned a number of reports from the NRC to help guide it in its current activities and future planning. Some of the more recent of these reports, available from, are the following:
2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. 254 pp.
2009. Informing Decisions in a Changing Climate. 200 pp.
2008. Ensuring the Climate Record from the NPOESS and GOES-R Spacecraft. 180 pp.
2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Pre-publication.
2008. Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation: Special Report. 296 pp.
2008. Global Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events: Understanding the Contributions to Infectious Disease Emergence: Workshop Summary. 304 pp.
2008. Hydrologic Effects of a Changing Forest Landscape. 194 pp.
2008. Observing Weather and Climate from the Ground Up: A Nationwide Network of Networks.
2007. Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond. 456 pp.
2007. Assessment of the NASA Applied Sciences Program. 160 pp.
2007. Evaluating Progress of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program: Methods and Preliminary Results. 170 pp.
2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments. 182 pp.
2007. Understanding Multiple Environmental Stresses: Report of a Workshop. 141 pp.
2007. Research and Networks for Decision Support in the NOAA Sectoral Applications Research Program. 96 pp.
2007. Environmental Data Management at NOAA: Archiving, Stewardship, and Access. 130 pp.
2007. NOAA’s Role in Space-Based Global Precipitation Estimation and Application. 142 pp.

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

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

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:17 AM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
ok thanks, as if i did not have enough to read all ready, well i will let you get back to the posting of your findings, i hope your keeping track of your links , nothing like 3 pages latter and oh "H" i have that already posted.

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:27 AM
reply to post by bekod

Unfortunately, I have had to re-post these links already many times. Because no one has been willing to discuss them or any of the info I posted . It appears to be just a place for those who dismiss chemtrails as a hoax to hang out and give each other stars while dropping one liners and making statements from their contrail guidebook

NASA climate change website
edit on 3-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 03:14 AM

October 1970 Wallace B. Murcray

W A L L A C E B. M U R C R A Y
Geophysical Institute, University of Al a s k a , College, A l a s k a
The possible effect of contrails in modifying the weather is reconsidered i n t h e light of information obtained f rom
ground-level contrails in Alaska. It appears likely t h a t inadvertent cloud seeding b y j e t aircraft ma y be of t h e same
order of magnitude as t h a t a t t a ined in commercial cloud seeding operations. Fur the r investigation is needed; b u t in
t h e meantime, t h e possibility of contrail contamination should be kept in mind when evaluating t h e results of seeding


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

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 09:46 AM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Well set up a thread of your own. Post all the usual non-sense that the 'chemmies' churn out. Post more misleading videos and sit back and watch how your stars and flags build up. You'll achieve your 15 minutes of fame. In the future when the thread is dead someone will bump it with a 'great info man! - stick it to those disinfo agents. My garden is full of chemtrail webs'. More stars and flags will follow and you will get a rosy glow.

What are you doing about 'chemtrails'? Are you part of a group? Are you out collecting the evidence rather than whining on forums because nobody will take you seriously?

You too can get your microscope out!

With that type of in-depth research disclosure must be just around the corner? Don't you agree?


edit on 3-3-2011 by tommyjo because: spelling

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 10:59 AM
I just found this site for anyone who is interested. I've never heard of it before and I still haven't looked through it.

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 12:27 PM
reply to post by TETRA.X

Oh, particular attention to part of that website's name....the "crap" part.

Here, just one example of their CRAP:

Watch that one, please. Them come back and comment on it....and ask yourself, "Why is anyone that stupid??"

Are they actually 'stupid'? Or, are they willfully spreading disinfo??

Hopefully, once you read and watch that ridiculous "article", it will become apparent to you the deception and/or idiocy of those people running that site.

OR, just ask, and I (or any of us) will gladly point out the flaws......

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by tommyjo

Slow down a bit mate - you've repeated the same BS three times already, and haven't addressed a single line of the document! Your posts read like a cut & paste job with a few tweaks to get round the mods!

This thread has dissolved into a mud-slinging festival, and I see we have some new monkeys in attendance.

M'eh. The truth will out - 'National Security' is probably the thing that'll restrict the truth for the 40 or 50 years you keep bleating about.

********************* *********************

Weedwhacker: clarify the 'us' you just mentioned. Who are our resident experts on chemtrails - sorry, 'persistent contrails'..? Who can show me credentials to back up their ATS opinions? Why has this thread been turned into a foray of haranguing of those who want to know the truth of the matter? Why are supposed professionals stooping to the level of schoolyard ridicule in this thread? The CIA and other security services tend to use such tactics when they want to steer people off a sensitive topic... I'm not saying that you guys are CIA, but I'm saying that you should well appreciate why people would think that the likes of yourself, phage and tommyjo might be such, simply from the tone of your posts.

Some parts of the 'truth movement' are almost certainly agents provocateur, and well you know how these things operate.... Muddying the waters by wittering on about nonsense 'three trails' and 'pod planes' theories seems suggestive of disinfo, but that in itself doesn't mean that the whole subject is based upon such BS.

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:45 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

It's not crap to those who KNOW the truth..... it's actually very good info. You should contribute to the thread a bit more instead of trying to trash everyone else's contribution.

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:57 PM
I'm wondering what this supposed challenge actually is - so far we have a document pulling together various means of measuring the effects of aerosols (which is neither news nor secret), and a bunch of link spam that at least partially covers the same subject - no I didn't look at htem all - if there is somethnig actually in there that says chemtrails exist then why can't he point it out?

It seems our resident spammer cannot actually formulate an argument - a conclusion based upon premises - he is hoping we sill do it for him perhaps??

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:01 PM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

which says exactly what the science has always said - contrails are ice crystals, they expand to form cirrus clouds when conditions are correct, and those clouds can have some effect on weather, just like all couds do.

TA DA - the spammer has shown that contrails are contrails - what a genius!!

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:07 PM
Even chemtrail central, admits that contrails can persist.

Disinformation: Contrails don't last longer than 30 seconds.

Normal jet traffic can leave trails that persist for quite some time given atmospheric conditions that are favorable. In my studies, contrails from commercial and passenger jets have left contrails that persisted for as much as two minutes, on one occasion more than 20 minutes. Normal contrails can persist even more if they fly through a pre-existing persistent trail, cloud or other high mosture zone.

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:10 PM
reply to post by TETRA.X

Please.....I contributed here, by asking you to watch JUST that one bit, in order to focus in, and to then explain either, why you found it compelling, or....(hopefully) that you begin to see that it is a load of BS....the video, the claims, everything. Are false. They are lies. AND, after viewing the video (where the original makers obviously were there, they actually saw the place with their own eyes)....either they are in on perpetuating this fraud, or they are really, really stupid.

So....which is it?

Can you see what I'm talking about, yet, in that video? Because, once you realize the shell-game and disinfo they are playing and spewing, in the case of this "chem"-trail hoax, are you afraid that your ego will take a beating??

There's no shame in realizing you've been scammed. There are plenty of weasels out there who are very, very clever at pulling off these sorts of con jobs.......

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:11 PM

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
I kinda already knew you would chicken out on this one. Let's see if any of your other comrades have the nerve, the guts or the intellect to accept a true, fair, open and honest, intelligent, scientific debate as well as an analysis of the documents and reports that I have supplied to you all.

Maybe at least one of you all will finally actually read the damn thing and decide to accept. Until then I believe there isn't much left to deny except your own ignorance..

Can you paraphrase where we are on this thread for we stupid folk; please put your challenge in your own words so laymen like me can understand?

If it involves tangible evidence attempting to prove or disprove a theory, I'm all in...but I'm not clear on what your challenge is and my eyes glaze over trying to keep track of the cut and paste wars. Can you please summarize?

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:14 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by TETRA.X

There's no shame in realizing you've been scammed. There are plenty of weasels out there who are very, very clever at pulling off these sorts of con jobs.......

I beg to differ...there's plenty of shame.

new topics

top topics

<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in