Is ATS Supporting Ignorance Concerning Chemtrails? I think so.

Before I continue with presenting the other evidence mentioned in my previous post
There have been a few recent additional developments to the "chemtrail" controversy

In this video a proposal made by geo-engineering scientists is discussed. They are seeking approval for the use of 200 Million Tons of Aluminum Aerosol








For copies of lab results showing aluminum, barium, manganese, thorium, nickel, and many other toxic heavy metals at levels 100's of X over the max limit for human exposure. See arizonaskywatch.com... and click on the 2008 and 2009 results.

Next on
Saturday, February 20, 2010 - Annual AAAS Meeting (American Association for the Advancement of Science) at the San Diego Convention Center. Scientist Alan Robock, Rutgers University, meets with protesters before his scheduled session, "Can Geoengineering Save Us from Global Warming? ". Protesters claim geoengineering is already taking place with chemical spraying (via persistant jet trails also known as "chemtrails") while Mr. Robock argues they are confused with normal contrails that produce cirrus clouds.

Alan Robock is funded by the US National Science Foundation, to evaluate "the efficacy and possible consequences of proposals to reduce incoming solar radiation to counteract global warming by injecting aerosol particle into the stratosphere." Recent papers describe climate model simulations and the benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering.




In Germany, scientists have been studying the "chemtrail" activity of their military and made this statement

We can state with a 97% certainty that we have on our hands chemical trails (chemtrails) comprised by fine dust containing polymers and metals, used to disrupt radar signals. This is their main purpose, but I was surprised that this artificial cloud was so wide-spread. The radar images are stunning considering the needed tons of dispersed elements. Although, the federal army claims that only small amounts of material were propagated. The military heads claim that the substances used are not harmful.

This is the video link for the German scientists
www.youtube.com...

And in The Washington Post dated Dec 20, 2010
washingtontechnology.com...

Raytheon buys Applied Signal Technology Company processes communications signals for intelligence missions By David Hubler Dec 20, 2010 Raytheon Co. has signed a definitive agreement to acquire Applied Signal Technology Inc., a processor of communications signals for tactical and strategic intelligence missions, for $38 a share in cash, for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $490 million.

After successful completion of the transaction, which is expected in the first quarter of 2011, Applied Signal will be integrated into Raytheon's Space and Airborne Systems business. Applied Signal is based in Sunnyvale, Calif.

I would like to once again recommend that anyone wanting to learn more about the serious health concerns and political and environmental issues involved with the "chemtrail" controversy. Should watch this documentary.

"WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE THEY SPRAYING"
www.youtube.com...

This is a video that presents some of the footage and topics in the documentary


www.realityzone.com...

This is for you Chemtrail debunkers

reply to post by MathiasAndrew



You aren't getting very far with your intended audience because they're dealing in more tangible evidence than that which you've provided. Hell, I'm a bona fide skeptic over here on the fence, and all you've done is alienate me by ignoring pertinent observations and valid questions.

I'm all for learning, but I hate being lectured to, especially by someone who hasn't researched the subject properly.

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


He doesn't even understand what is happening in the videos. He just accepts them as 100% proof of his and the general chemtrail theories. If he is so easily misled by those compiling the videos, then it shows how easily he is being misled by documents. Documents that don't prove a thing other than him being naive and gullible enough to interpret them into evidence of chemtrails.

TJ

reply to post by tommyjo


Do you or do you not agree with this statement?

There seems to be no disagreement or large argument among those few individuals who oppose the belief that "chemtrails" actually exist. That the technology, the methods, the motives and the means to develop and carry out a project like "chemtrails" is out there and already exists. The only disagreement seems to lie in whether it actually is or has been being used or not. And also of the fact that most if not all of the persistent contrails seen by the public and are most notably being called "chemtrails" have absolutely no connection to the real technology and the probable ways that that technology would actually be being used and implemented. Even though they admittingly agree that that technology already exists. Please correct me if I have this wrong.

reply to post by Yankee451


How would you know if I have or have not researched the subject properly? Are you an expert on doing proper research. And particularly doing research about this subject? No you were easily dissuaded and misled by a small group of thugs who forced you to ignore the real evidence right in front of your own eyes and you followed them right down a blind alley trying to catch some carrot they dangled in front of you.

I researched this topic enough to get farther from ignorance and closer to the truth than you did apparently. And I strongly doubt you are or were ever on the fence about this issue. You are like good cop bad cop playing your acting roles to the bitter end.

Since you've already done your research maybe you'll be willing to accept the challenge i proposed a couple pages back ?

OK look, I supplied my evidence, which is the document from earlier, way before you decided to come in here with your video to distract the current evidence I'm offering up for evaluation. No one from the contrail side of this seems to want to comment or discuss whats in that document. The challenge is simple.... I will look at and evaluate your video later.......But first, I want one person to accept my challenge to go through this document line by line and page by page to interpret the information contained within this document. We will use the glossary provided and others sources to define to meaning of the information. It should be an even and fair debate ..meaning no teams of 3 against 1, with all the usual distractions from others and no changing the subject until the entire document has been mutually agreed upon what the interpretation should be. If certain parts can not be defined clearly to the satisfaction of both persons. Then we will set those items aside into a separate column for larger group debate. Anyone willing to accept this challenge ? Here is the document....www.usgcrp.gov... signature:

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I for one am pleased that a member has taken the trouble to collate so many sources of info and relevant videos. It cuts down my research time by a good percentage; I don't understand why you've taken offence? The debunkers (weedwhacker et al) have taken pages to ridicule the subject and the people who study it, so why can't Mathias post up a few pages detailing some of the resources he's come across lending weight to the suggestion that something IS being sprayed in our skies???

NOTE - The Germans obviously take this quite seriously. The more I look, the greater the evidence of cover-up seems. Ad hominems and misdirection, pointed & repetitive slamming of certain data sets and completely ignoring others; such seem to be the preferred debunk methods. NB - some of the 'truth movement' is quite clearly set up as disinfo, to attract ridicule and easy 'tinned debunks' that the agents/ regular debunkers can slam on.


NB - To all the actual agents out there - did you realise you'd sold your souls by agreeing to lie for the machine?

reply to post by tommyjo


No, you have no evidence that your statement is an accurate reflection of Mathias' beliefs. What he's doing is posting up videos that he has found to be useful, and I appreciate that.

Not every source is a black/white - right/wrong case in point. What the avid researcher should do is review as much information as possible, and then sort out the good info from the bad info. One youtube video might contain pointers to excellent scientific studies, or websites where real professional opinion lends weight to a theory, and at the same time contain an interview with a hillbilly who obviously has no idea what a 'sulphate' is. Just because the video contains a hillbilly's testimony doesn't mean it has nothing of worth to be found within its entirety. This is the sort of repetitive BS coming from the regular debunkers/ agents. Find a fault; any fault - discredit the whole resource as worthless because of one fault/ a hillbilly.



Youtube videos are frustratingly full of crap at times - other times they contain golden nuggets of info that help in the overall pursuit of knowledge. Move with the times and check all sources, sift through and determine a hypothesis, then work to build a case supporting the hypothesis, then present your findings with all references.

I'm not suggesting you could use a Youtube video as a credible source. Just that they can be helpful in locating good sources in modern times.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


If you are gullible enough to believe 100% in those videos that you posted, then it proves how easy you are influenced by written words that you feel makes you believe in 'chemtrails'. You are going to be one very puzzled person when none of this is disclosed in decades to come. You can't even work out how Air Traffic Control functions, basic meteorology or how a jet engine forms contrails.

Your belief is that a persistent contrail is proof of a 'chemtrail' as you have shown in the videos that you posted. Go back and tell me what is happening in the video with the three trails? That video is being used as evidence as proof of an aircraft 'caught' spraying. Do you support that as evidence? Can you work out why there are three trails? Instead of just blindly following and back slapping the compilers of those videos, do a bit of research.

Remember your reference to 'rear wing set'

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Obviously you are easily influenced by such videos produced by the chemtrail believers. Do you honestly think that the trails are coming from the 'rear wing set'?

Two engines. Tanker Enemy even has proof of a spraying device! Do you believe that also?



Four engines. Note where the outer engine contrails are forming? Do you still believe that the spraying is coming from the 'rear wing set' ?



TJ

Look at all the 'spraying devices' forming on this airliner? Tanker Enemy would be doing cartwheels if he saw that video? Can you see now why Tanker Enemy is a con artist?



TJ

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


That is not the case. Go back and examine the videos that he is putting up as evidence. Go back and examine his understanding of the 'gap' between engine and where the contrail forms. He can't, or doesn't, want to understand the principles of why that happens. It is just dismissed with a hand wave. He accepts and presents these videos as evidence. As already pointed out he believes purely from this 'video evidence' that the 'spraying' is coming from the 'rear wing set'. He just accepts that Tanker Enemy's re-working of the KC-10 video is showing 'spraying nozzles'. No thought goes into it and it is just accepted as positive proof.

The same goes in his presentation of Tanker Enemy videos that show trails from the rear of the airliners. Absolutely no idea of drain or venting on airliners and anyone posting knowledge of the systems is simply dismissed with more hand waiving.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

TJ

reply to post by tommyjo


You seem to be the one who enjoys taking shots at people. Instead of me trying to impress you with any kind of explanation or theory about the videos you supplied. Which is just another tactic you and your whole posse like to use to distract from the relevant points, I will just keep on lining them up and you can keep trying to shoot them down. Take your best shot. None of you have hit the target yet. Your conjecture and opinion mean nothing to me. Your insults and meaningless attempts at distraction and confusion only invigorate me more. I enjoy watching you snakes squirm like the worms on a hook. Soon I will catch the big fish and reel you in.

DEBUNK THIS

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Soon I will catch the big fish and reel you in.

Good grief. What age are you? Come on!

If you can't even work out why there is a 'gap' between engine and contrail formation how on earth are you going to understand how contrails actually form? Yet again you produce a video as 'positive proof'. It is laughable. Is it any reason why people are not taking you seriously? Go onto an aviation forum and ask an airline pilot about the formation of contrails. See if you can get an airliner pilot to back up your theory?

Now I know that your hand will be in a waiving frenzy, but this is the basics of what you are seeing. Please feel free to debunk that webpage or find a professional airline pilot that agrees with your theory about the video?

contrailscience.com...

If you notice that webpage also features the contrail test of Airbus 340 and Boeing 707. Note the findings on efficient and less efficient engine technology.

www.bragwebdesign.com...

Have you worked out the third trail video, yet?

TJ

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Your posts get more delusional as they go on. Nothing on the third trail video? Basic aircraft recognition, if you possessed it, might assist you? In fact basic knowledge of aviation would help you full stop. Any more videos that you want reviewing? Remember to keep away from Tanker Enemy productions!

Here are more videos for your research. 'Cloaked' is the new buzz work within your community. Have you done any research on it? They are obvious 'Chemtrails' right? So how are they doing it?





TJ

Going forward Please focus your posts on the Actual topic of discussion and NOT individual perceptions of a fellow member's character, self or person.

ALSO,
One-liners and posts which truly add nothing to the discussion are subject to removal.



Thank you.

Is ATS Supporting Ignorance Concerning Chemtrails? I think so.

Unfortunately there is too much censorship surrounding this topic already. It appears obvious that there is a factual basis to believe that ATS is in indeed supporting ignorance when it comes to the chemtrail issue.

There is an obvious cover up and suppression of information that currently occurring and I do not wish to put forth the effort of denying the ignorance of the website that claims their motto is "deny ignorance"

Is ATS Supporting Ignorance Concerning Chemtrails? I think so.

edit on 3/4/2011 by 12m8keall2c because: (no reason given)

Yes ATS is indeed supporting ignorance when it comes to the chem trail issue. It is positively confirmed 100%

There is now no doubt in my mind that this issue is Taboo and not being allowed to be openly and honestly discussed here. The efforts by the staff and other members to stop valuable information from being accessible and remaining accessible is clearly a violation of the implied intentions that were stated in becoming a member.