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.

 

Is ATS Supporting Ignorance Concerning Chemtrails? I think so.

page: 47
131
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Well get out there and bring some evidence to the table! It is no use shouting about 'cover-ups' and going off in a huff. What exactly are you expecting from your posts on the forum? Are you seeking people to rise up, 'see the light' and raise you up on a pedestal?

It is clear that aviation confuses you. Everything from jet engines to how contrails form. It is apparent that you are easily influenced by video from people who have a history of misleading. Anyone can do it. You have to ask yourself why they don't want debate on their YT Channels. Why don't they come onto the likes of ATS and discuss what they have filmed?

TJ




posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
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?



Because you are avoiding using the established science to attempt to identify the conditions that cause persistent contrails, that is why you haven't researched the subject properly.

I am not an expert on anything, but even I know that to do proper research you need to investigate all leads to get a more complete picture. Apparently, in your myopic view, by following leads that could shed doubt on my hypothesis, I've exposed myself as some kind of operative. Good grief, listen to yourself man.

You've been doing a lot of cutting and pasting, but if you read my threads on the matter, you can see I was in the same boat. The only reason I've gotten back on the fence is because I did the math...before that, just like you, there was NOTHING the pilot types could say to me to sway my conviction.

The more you avoid the necessary task of testing your hypothesis, the more disingenuous you sound.

edit on 4-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Pretty hard to take anything you say seriously when you get your "science" from places like "Contrailscience.com"
That is a blatant propaganda website that is beyond ludicrous.

People need to get over that they have been fooled. Call them "Powderized Contrails" or "Chemtrails" or whatever you want. Whatever is coming out the back of the planes is being done on purpose to manipulate the climate. Keep looking up and you will see.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainSpock
 


OH.

Another "new" person?

You made some amazing assertions, almost as if they were stated as "fact". But, tragically for those of us who dealin actual facts....such claims require evidence and documentation.

So, get on it, please. You have a long row to hoe.......

("new"....but yet, such an amazing skill at avatar uploads....WoW!)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
they (generally speaking) still deny cloudseeding too. silver oxide, rocket, there you go. rain. there was a whole article in an issue of national geographic, and since then I have heard people HUMILIATE other people who have spoken about the fact.

I suggest not relying on any single conspiracy site for your source of information. and frankly ATS got some 'splainin' to do in this and other cases. then again I said this a month ago. you hearing me? y'all have been comprimised/enjoy your paychecks too much...

ed: i'd hope its not the latter but frankly I have lost touch with the premise of hope lately, where other people are concerned.
edit on 4-3-2011 by madscientistintraining because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-3-2011 by madscientistintraining because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainSpock
 


I know it's a blatant propaganda site, and I wasn't listing it as a source. I was referring to the science of contrails, not contrailscience.com. Jeebus; you guys are embarrassing me...to think I used to sound just like you.

The pilots don't trust me, and my old team doesn't trust me, shoot...where's the clique for people who aren't satisfied with either side yet?



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by madscientistintraining
they (generally speaking) still deny cloudseeding too. silver oxide, rocket, there you go. rain. there was a whole article in an issue of national geographic, and since then I have heard people HUMILIATE other people who have spoken about the fact.

I suggest not relying on any single conspiracy site for your source of information. and frankly ATS got some 'splainin' to do in this and other cases. then again I said this a month ago. you hearing me? y'all have been comprimised/enjoy your paychecks too much...

ed: i'd hope its not the latter but frankly I have lost touch with the premise of hope lately, where other people are concerned.
edit on 4-3-2011 by madscientistintraining because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-3-2011 by madscientistintraining because: (no reason given)


Who has denied cloud seeding? The chemtrailers keep trotting out that canard, and trying to connect the two, when they are nothing alike, and its disingenuous to try to use cloud seeding as evidence for this nefarious chemtrails conspiracy.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Check out my thread on what I witnessed after a heavy Chemtrail/Contrail day.

HAARP? Chemtrails?



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


When I joined I read the 'how to' thread and managed to upload an avatar pretty sharpish.

I don't know how your snide post didn't get removed as off-topic...



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 


I have looked at a few of the videos he posted that caught my eye, and didn't find them to be entirely baseless, so I don't understand your point?

As I said - sift through the info, sorting the good from the bad.

I'm a busy man, and will set time aside for dedicated research into all the material presented and various other sources that I've come across already, as well as following where the (chem) trail
leads, over the next couple of weeks. Until then, I'm admittedly skimming the surface, but still, even doing that, an observant person can see that there is more to this chemtrail issue than many would have us believe...


Seeing as I haven't yet watched the videos you directly refer to in the response you gave (to which I'm replying), I can't comment on those in particular. I raised an objection to your comment that Mathias is concluding that everything he's posting is somehow 100% proof of a conspiracy. I haven't seen that claim in front of each video he's posted, so I just don't understand: a) Why you assume that of him, and b) Why you're having a hard time conceding that my objection is valid.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
You didnt see anything baseless? He has posted many baseless things, but his method is just to spam them all at once, which then prevents reasoned discussion on them.

As it is, with him posting many videos at a time, and just entire cut and paste jobs, it just does not make it possible to discuss any specific aspects.

But if you want baseless, I will give you this. that What in the World are they Spraying, impiles that there should not be aluminum and barium in the soil and water, which it is of course a natural part of nature, because thats where it comes from. And they actually create alarmist and hysteria,over completely normal levels

And if you want more baseless, "aircrap,org" shows pictures of planes that are missing the engines, or shows pictures of aircraft with rear mounted engines and claims those are spray devices. How completely disingenuious is that, no one can actually be that stupid. Of course that person knows what they are showing



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainSpock
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Pretty hard to take anything you say seriously when you get your "science" from places like "Contrailscience.com"
That is a blatant propaganda website that is beyond ludicrous.

People need to get over that they have been fooled. Call them "Powderized Contrails" or "Chemtrails" or whatever you want. Whatever is coming out the back of the planes is being done on purpose to manipulate the climate. Keep looking up and you will see.


I gotta say, that hurts man. It was because I was looking up that I started checking my numbers to begin with.

I use powder contrails because that's what the patents call them. What is it with you guys and your displaced sense of loyalty anyway? Are you more loyal to your beliefs or to the truth? What would you have me do once I figured out I might be wrong; lie, or skulk away?

To any of you out there who still may care, I have managed to prove that the photos I have, which I once assumed were "chemtrails", were taken at times when persistent contrails would have been accompanying commercial aircraft anyway. I also had to correct the record and state that what I once thought were grids, when examined with honest eyes, were northsouth paths of what were probably commercial aircraft.

If you'd simply read the first paragraph of the Appleman student chart you'd see that yes, persistent contrails are real and predictable. This doesn't mean your precious chemtrails aren't real, but it certainly means your opposition appears to have a solid argument to explain much of the cloud cover increase we who look at the sky have noticed.

Simple logic tells me that in order to effectively manipulate the weather they'd be spraying regardless whether they could sneak it in while planes would be contrailing anyway...SOOO...if you can grab a photo of suspicious activity, test it the same way I did...you might have better luck than I did, but if you don't and you manage to prove you're wrong, keep it to yourself. It's a jungle out here.
edit on 4-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: changed flight paths to aircraft

edit on 4-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: typo



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Well the Appelman chart directly contradicts Chemtrail Religion Dogma, because it shows conditions that could very well lead to persisting contrails. And I read online somewhere that it actually underpredicts constrail persistence too.

Many chemtrailers just take it as a matter of faith that contrails absolutely can not persist, because a chemtrail site says so. However, logic and common sense would say that yes they can, since it is so cold up there, and that jet engines have water as an exhaust byproduct, and cirrus clouds can last all day in the sky too, which is basically what jet engines are making in the right conditions.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
And I read online somewhere that it actually underpredicts constrail persistence too.



True...I read the military is attempting to create a revised system that is more accurate...making it easier to prove myself wrong in the future.




posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
 


He hasn't provided anything other than the same 'chemmie' diatribe that others have spouted year after year on ATS. How many times have we seen it? They think that they have all the evidence of positive proof and go all out to put their case onto the forum. As per usual they end up storming off and shouting government shill and disinfo agent!

You make the claim 'an observant person can see that there is more to this chemtrail issue than many would have us believe.' That is the case only if you allow the people making these misleading videos and websites to suck you in. It is clear that he has allowed himself to be sucked in and is highly influenced by those videos. Yes, he is using those videos to back up his claims. He doesn't question anything in them, but just accepts them as proof of chemtrail spraying. The people that make those videos play on the fact that many people stumbling into the Chemtrail theory do not possess even a basic knowledge of aviation. You can see that from the comments that they allow on their websites and You Tube Channels.

I think that we have exhausted any further debate on the subject of Mathias Andrew. Anyone can go over his spam postings and cherry pick what they want. Everyone is entitled to their opinion however flawed. Thanks for the debate.

TJ



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


All I know is where I live, you can Never enjoy and beautiful blue sky anymore. They spray here everyday, and all those criss cross lines spread out into cloud cover blocking out our beautiful blue skies and the sun. It is a horrific thing they are doing to our air and planet!!



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by dezi11263
 



which is fine as far as it goes - but do you realise that contrails have been doing this since at least 1940, so there any need to invent a world-wide conspiracy to account for it??

If "chemtrailers" were REALLY concerned with cloud cover they'd be lobbying to have laws to force airlines not to fly at contrail altitudes - but I guess there's no money in that, whereas by spreading a chemtrail conspiracy they can cash in.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainSpock
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Pretty hard to take anything you say seriously when you get your "science" from places like "Contrailscience.com"
That is a blatant propaganda website that is beyond ludicrous.


Really?

What is there on it that is wrong? All of it? Just part of it? Just hte parts you say are wrong? What is your evidence that it is wrong?

Expanding persistant contrails have been known since at least 1940 - Antoine de Saint-Exupery wrote about them in "Flight to Arras" in 1942, which you can get on Amazon - and then he was shot down and kiled in 1944 - was he wrong?

Or are we jsut required to accept your say-so that CS is "beyond ludicrous"?

Because Contrail Science goes to a lot of lengths to back up what it says, whereas you go to none at all to prove otherwise.



Whatever is coming out the back of the planes is being done on purpose to manipulate the climate. Keep looking up and you will see.


How does looking up prove the intent of those "doing it'?




top topics



 
131
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join