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.

 

EXCLUSIVE "What in The World Are They Spraying" Chemist talks to ATS about Geoengineering.

page: 9
53
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 




I might be the closest as I see both sides and am pretty close to the middle willing to let the evidence sway my view




Phage your full of it. Dis-information.




How much are they paying you anyways?


You're about as impartial as Alex Jones discussing FEMA camps it seems...

Maybe you should throw a few more ad-homs in there, I don't think there's enough.





posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



I am guessing that you have never taken flying lessons.


I'm guessing you are wrong..
I have passes in all subjects to CPL standard and have flown and used sims..
How about you???



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



Now I believe that is the end of the topic as to whether my questions were on topic or not, and as to the fact that I am a moderator of certain forum here on the site (not including this particular one).


No mate. The topic was the video which you freely admit you didn't bother to watch before posting..
Your posts were therefore off topic..

At least admit to facts.....



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Who would you suggest to be impartial Chad.?
You seem fair and have been here long enough to know Mod's views..



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Phage can present great arguments, but then turns around at uses slick disinformation techniques. I have pointed out many of his psychological tricks over several threads. I have voiced great criticism to his cherry picking, ignoring data, refusing to read or watch evidence, refusal to address any argument that cast doubt on his position, use of slick psychological disinformation such as the one I just pointed out, and many more low and underhanded argument techniques.

I have great respect for phage and i think his source on soil samples is one of the best arguments against this movie, he also presented a study of water around Mt. Shasta that call questions on the findings.

I have repeatedly throughout the three threads that have evolved this discussion affirmed and avowed his valid points and even provided some of my own that they missed.

I am not set on one answer, i think there are a variety of things at work here. The case that spraying is going on other than chaff and cloud seeding and tests (proof of concept) is highly circumstantial and has not been verified imho.

What I can not stand is a closed mindedness or the disinformation techniques I have pointed out above.

Here's a list of techniques and he has used about all of them:
Here is the link, it might be to long of a quote, mods feel free to snip it if it is: link.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic
which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed
with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen

edit on 5-3-2011 by pianopraze because: formatting



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Nef may be the host of ATS live but there are several other people on the ATS live team and some, if I recall are either impartial or lean towards chemtrails.

So I think the whole ATS live team together would make impartial mediators.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Essan
 



So, have similar quanties of aluminium been found in widespread locations all over the planet? Yes or no?


Considering aluminum is one of the most common elements in the planets crust I'd say yes.
The question is, what concentrations are in the air, not the soil...


Whatever is in the air will eventually be on the ground. But in any case, you are refuting the evidence that Dr Thyme presents to support the chemtrail hypothesis.

Notwithstanding which, such tests as I have proposed (and Dr Thyme has conducted around My Shasta, but apparently not yet elsewhere) will either corroborate or falsify the hypothesis. If it can be show that surface levels of aluminium (or barium or whatever) are increasing in all parts of the world then we have a strong argument in favour of the hypothesis. If they are not it falsifies the hypothesis. This is how science works, as opposed to ATS where it seems whoever shouts loudest and uses the most ad homs wins .....



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Quote from Phage..


Yes.
I am not here to debate.


Leaves little doubt as to his already set views...



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
OK.

Heres how I see it.

People claim to want a fair discussion on this, then fine.

I'd suggest that folks on both sides of the argument stop resorting to bickering and accusations of paid disinformation first.

It seems to me that people want to dictate how the radio show is run as well. Newsflash - that is not going to run.

We have treated every guest we've had on AboveTopSecret Live with respect and courtesy, and we have put callers to them and allowed them time to answer the questions put forward. We have asked some hard questions at times, because some of the subjects we deal with on ATS require hard questions.

Yes, my viewpoint on the subject is well known. Why is that a problem? If people have the power of their convictions, and appropriate evidence to back up their claims then surely they can present a credible argument to counter anything that I, or any other skeptic can put forward. There is NO editing on live radio, there can't be because its live. The arguments stand and fail on what is presented at the time. Simple as that.

I'm discussing the radio show idea with the studio crew and the interested parties. It will NOT happen this week, as our show schedule for tonight is already sorted out. I would hope to be able to give it a slot next week should everyone be available.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Posting to pin to myats,.
THIS is a great debate,. thanks for finding this guy



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


You are so far off the mark, and off the rails, attacking Phage with that ridiculous list of "25"....in FACT, by doing so, you YOURSELF have engaged in the very sort of "DIS"-info you are complaining about.
(After were so impressive in Chat, and "ATS Live" the other week, too???)



Not only that, you did it twice, before, with the "chaff" videos. The ONLY reason you ever even found those is because some pathetic hoax pusher put them up on his/her many "chem"-trail garbage websites.

Then, disingenuously, the claim was made to somehow compare that (chaff) to the outrageous claims that they "resemble" contrails!!!! Contrails form at 25,000 feet and UP! Where, do you think chaff is deployed??

Also....contrails do NOT...I repeat, do NOT appear on radar. AT ALL! Neither does ice. Not even snow. The ONLY way that weather is depicted on weather radar is when there is liquid water present. "Dry" snow, no go. "Wet" snow, yes, THAT will return radar "hits". Rain too, of course. Hail, IF it is "dry" (just solid, no coatings of super-cooled liquid water) will ALSO not paint on radar. (**)

(**)...This is why, as pilots, you are taught (and you learn) to NEVER fly beneath a cumulo-nimbus "anvil" overhang. Hail can be lofted way up, and carried downwind, to then drop out of the overhang...and it will be DRY and will NOT show up on the airborne WX radar screens....

Usually, though, as part of the formation cycle of hail, it DOES become encapsulated in water..."super-cooled" means that it is water that exists at a temperature of below freezing....it will remain that way until disturbed, then freezes solid almost instantly. This is how hailstones "grow"...they form, fall for a while, pick up super-cooled water, are lofted back up in updrafts, in the convective currents of the cumulo-nimbus clouds....their coating of water freezes, they are bigger now....begin to fall, pick up more water, etc. UNTIL, eventually, they fall all the way down...escaping updrafts, or becoming too heavy to be lifted by the prevailing currents.

Really.....it is apparent, over and over and over again, that the people who fall for this HOAX of "chem"-trails have absolutely zero basic understanding and education in many aspects of the various fields involved...to include, of course aviation and meteorology and radar technology (and radar limitations, handicaps)....



edit on 5 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
are you aware that the chemtrailing phenomenon is regarded as a method by which to dumb down the civilian population?,heavy metals cross the blood brain barrier and lead to neurodegeneration.
i know for certain the target is neurodegeneration.

a portion of the chemtrailing phenomenon regards high denisty polyethelene fibers which house bionanomagnetite bacteria,when nano magnetite enters the brain is causes severe neuronal damage.
nanobiomagnetite is accumilating in human brains and has been recorded being deposited in it by unknown sources which is infact the fibers.

are you aware of dr staningers work?



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by shebangsthedrums
 


Well....it ONLY seems to be working on those who "believe" in "chem"-trails, then!!!


The rest of us have suffered no delusions, psychotic breaks, lowered IQs, or any other such symptoms......maybe it's some sort of "Paranoid Delusion Seeking Toxin"???



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by shebangsthedrums
 


Well....it ONLY seems to be working on those who "believe" in "chem"-trails, then!!!


The rest of us have suffered no delusions, psychotic breaks, lowered IQs, or any other such symptoms......maybe it's some sort of "Paranoid Delusion Seeking Toxin"???


nope magnetic iron related neurological problems are common.
parkinsons,alzhiemers and senile demntia is caused by nano iron in the brain.
www.ninds.nih.gov...




PRESS RELEASE- Grenoble, 10 October- Scientists suspect that iron accumulation plays a role in neurodegenerative processes such as Parkinson's disease, but its distribution in neurons has never been observed because of the lack of techniques to do so. Until today

www.esrf.eu...

i suggest you do more research before you answer.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
If you wish to have an unbiased moderator for the radio show, you will look for quite a while. Since i am a chemist, and i try to understand the world in terms of chemistry, i think you have an unbiased guest. Aerial spraying has happened since they started building airplains and doing crop-dusting. Defcon has some good points - what we are looking for are threads of coherence during a period of chaos.

there is one simple fact missing that will clear up the whole debate. How we can tease out the information of what that fact is requires some hard work by all of us, because quite frankly - i know the thought process is broken, but i can't tell how. Now i'm starting to get off topic, but this is something to explore down the road.

The movie has a sensational title because that is how movies are sold today. I accepted no payment for my role in the movie and really did not speak to whether the phenomena was really from the sprays. I think Burnttheships has some excellent research presented here - it is far beyond what i have, because i was answering the producers questions about the toxicology and chemistry, not making the case for or against anything.

As far as the thread drifting - i am a blogger - i understand these things. The idea of a summary of questions is awesome - and addressing whether science actually knows what it is talking about should be an issue here. I had a vison quest in 2007 that i cannot explain through chemistry and physics, but it was all about mathematics - sacred geometry and the like. Perhaps we can understand what happens by noting that a transition state requires the apex of energy to be achieved, the rest is all down-hill. The world needs this transition to happen and finding our what the lines in the sky are seems to me to be relevant to understanding what is really going on. I buy the conspiracy, but there has to be a physical explanation that is supported by facts.

What is your purpose: truth for it's own sake. Life beckons.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by lemmehowdt
 


Dr Thyme,

I am looking forward to your time on ATS Live!, thank you!

You expertise in chemisty should prove to shed some light on this highly conrtoversial subject,
and you are more than welcome to use any of the material I have posted.
In fact, the entire volume of reference material I have accumulated is also yours at any time.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Perhaps you should look into the flights that are daily flown by the CIA, the NSA, or the State Dept.

of course this may diffucult..............I would be teribly interested for you to list a week of flight schedules from these agencys

Parker



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by lemmehowdt
 


I just have to tell you that your area of expertise is narrow. I cannot see where it encompasses a very strong knowledge set involving aviation, and all of its complexities.

However, that is a topic that I can speak to with quite a bit of authority and experience.

Knowing what I know, and what I can observe/have observed over these many decades....the notion of any current, and on-going "chem"-trail programs is ludicrous.

I have enumerated, countless time, in dozens of threads here on ATS as to why.

Nutshell wrap-up?:

  • Scarcity of pilots, and rigid rules RE: flight time duty limits and rest requirements.
  • Scarcity of equipment, and;
  • Corollary to the above, LACK of any corroborating evidence, of any kind.

    NO photos of "spraying" equipped airplanes. (Oh, and the few terribly mistaken so-called "proofs" that infest the Internet "chemmie" websites?? They are just laughably ignorant....or, intentionally hoaxed, to prey on the gullible).

    NO photos, nor any indications of any activities on the ground, that would of necessity be required, in order to service and maintain an imagined "fleet" of these "sprayers".

    I could go on and on......



  • posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 01:40 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by weedwhacker
    reply to post by lemmehowdt
     


    I just have to tell you that your area of expertise is narrow. I cannot see where it encompasses a very strong knowledge set involving aviation, and all of its complexities.

    However, that is a topic that I can speak to with quite a bit of authority and experience.









    I could go on and on......



    Seriously???

    It appears that there is no subject that you do not speak on, and claim to be of the utmost authority on!!

    If I am wrong , please inform me of a subject that you have posted on, and not claimed to be an expert??

    Parker



    posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 01:45 PM
    link   
    reply to post by lemmehowdt
     



    I accepted no payment for my role in the movie and really did not speak to whether the phenomena was really from the sprays.

    That says a lot to me, thank you for sharing that. I am glad to have you as a member here, and I hope you may benefit from our hood, as well as help continue to make it flourish and intrigue.
    I must admit, the Gold Ormus stuff sounds a little flakey, but I have not dug into your research or any recent studies. Have there been any double blind tests or peer reviewed at this point? I'd enjoy a thread on this subject with sources/links if you find the time and desire. No need to respond here, this thread has enough material to ponder for now. If you ever need any help utilizing our tools or forums here, shoot me a message.
    I look forward to the radio show, and again thanks for your participation.
    Oh yea fellow Oregonian, Go Ducks!

    Peace,
    spec




    top topics



     
    53
    << 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

    log in

    join