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.

 

Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering aka "Chemtrails" DEBUNK THIS !!!!

page: 22
52
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Debunk this? There's nothing of substance to debunk!

Your Original Post is little more than a rant: no sources, no cites, and a "signature" that links back to the OP. A joke? A hoax? A fraud?

Let's see the 2nd post in the "proof:"

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew


www.globalchange.gov...

The landing page of the U.S. Global Change Research Program.


USGCRP coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society. The USGCRP began as a presidential initiative in 1989 and was mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-606), which called for "a comprehensive and integrated United States research program which will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change.


And a "Dane Wigington" YouTube vid? Former "engineer" and now a "preservationist" living off the grid.
You're kidding, right? No agenda there, right? Wasn't he one of the "scientisits" in the Mt. Shasta aluminum hoax?

Again, absolutely NOTHING to debunk. A clue of what's to come? Pure waste of (my) valuable time and ATS bandwidth. Little wonder these threads are relegated to the ATS "junk pile."

But, that's OK. I'll go along and see where the "meat" lies, if any.

3rd of your posts in the thread:
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

www.gcrio.org...

Another landing page, but for the sales department of Global Change Research Information Office.

The US Global Change Research Information Office (GCRIO) provides access to data and information on climate change research, adaptation/mitigation strategies and technologies, and global change-related educational resources on behalf of the various US Federal Agencies that are involved in the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)


Worthless crap that says absolutely nothing about geo-engineering or chemtrails. More waste.

But, you've got another link here:
www.gcrio.org...
More G-CRAP sales?

Lets See What We Have Here:
01. IPCC. Climate Change 2001. IPCC Third Assessment Report [CD] [2001].
02. IPCC. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. [2007]
03. IPCC. Carbon Dioxide Capture & Storage. Policymaker & Technical Summaries [2005]
04. IPCC. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change.


NOTHING on chemtrails again. Why am I no longer surprised. No doubt, you consider this "research."
More crap.

Oh, but wait, there's more:
www.ipcc.ch...
Not the IPCC landing page! But it is!
Once more, nothing on chemtrails, nothing to debunk. Pitiful research, if that's what you want to call it. Why not just point to a library, or the sky, and say, "See, there it is; PROOF!"?


The information found on these pages are reports from the studies done using chemtrails.


There is nothing in these sites "from the studies done using chemtrails."

But, since the "chemtrail" faithful/fearful deserve to be taken at heir word, or challenge, I'll go on:
www.climatescience.gov...

A 208-page PDF on "Decision-Support Experiments and Evaluations using Seasonal-to-Interannual Forecasts and Observational Data: A Focus on Water Resources?"

Did you even bother to see if it even mentions geo-engineering or "chemtrails?" It does not. (Big surprise. Not)

So what's your next "source" to be debunked?

www.climatescience.gov...
An article on "Re-Analysis and Attribution?" From the same people as above?
Maybe if you'd have someone read and explain it to you, you'd understand what "Re-Analysis" or "Attribution" mean; neither of which is evident thus far in the OP.

But, on topic, what does this have yo do with the two topics?
Thus far, there is absolutely nothing to be debunked but your thread title; and I have thoroughly exposed this HOAX for what it is.

So now what?

History channel Documentary

[orl]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na93z_3Ot_s[/url]

Another YouTube vid? "Weather warfare, chemtrails, on the History Channel" It does nothing but discuss research about possibilities, speculation and weather experiments.

Benjamin Franklin did that 270 years ago.

Once again, all hat, no cattle.

And you had to "edit" this? Twice?

What was there to "edit?" There's no "there" there.

Just as you requested, I have "debunk[ed] this."

What an empty, complete waste of time. Just as all "chemtrail" pretend-research and "proof" have been thus far, everywhere, and especially from the children whose parents let them play on ATS.

deny ignorance
jw
edit on 14-3-2011 by jdub297 because: quote




posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 

You haven't debunked a thing. Your seemingly endless ranting of worthless uneducated claims with no actual investigation into the sources and you then trying to superficially quote the links I posted and take them out of context isn't quite what I call debunking. If you didn't look at the other thread where most of the evidence was already presented. Then go back, read it correctly this time and check your arrogant, self serving attitude at the door.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by jdub297
 

You haven't debunked a thing.


You haven't posted anything to "debunk."

How far into the thread do I have to go to find what you want debunked? You invited it, didn't you?

The initial post links to nothing, cites nothing; ∴ it is a rant.
The closest you come to any statement of fact is this:


It is a very sensitive and highly suppressed subject. That is also a very important and very large operation being carried out on a Global scale by many nations all in cooperation and combined with scientific, political, military and financial organizations.


Where's your source? Where's your cite to authority, evidence or facts? There is none. Face it. It is your opinion, and nothing more.

It offers absolutely no proof to support your claims. Do you want me to quote all of it?

Quote this, and show me where you cite any authority.

You do not. Debunked.

I went to the links in your second post.

I've been to the globalchange,gov site many times since it was introduced.

Show me a single citation from them that supports any claim of present0day chemtrails or geo-engineering, anywhere.

You can not. ∴ Debunked.

Wigington's video, and aluminum/barium claims have no factual support, and have themselves been debunked. His reliance on purported "analysis" of Mt. Shasta snow/water is false - show me test results that show an abnormality, they should be easily replicated. He is a fraud.


Your seemingly endless ranting of worthless uneducated claims with no actual investigation into the sources and you then trying to superficially quote the links I posted and take them out of context isn't quite what I call debunking.


It is neither endless nor ranting, it is a point-by-point response to the 1st three posts of your thread; not one of which lends any support to its title. ∴ Debunked.

My statements are not "claims," they are factual representations of what you posted yourself.
I've been through all of the links and your reliance is misplaced. You've done no research.

How do you take a website "out of context," anyway? Do you even read what you post? Show me ANYWHERE in your government or quasi-government links that actually discuss present-day geo-engineering or "chemtrails."
They do not. ∴ Debunked.

Show me a single test, report, or analysis from ANY of your links that support alleged present-day geo-engineering or "chemtrails." You cannot; they do not. ∴ Debunked.


If you didn't look at the other thread where most of the evidence was already presented.


What other "thread?" Is that even a sentence?


Then go back, read it correctly this time and check your arrogant, self serving attitude at the door.


Mat, you're getting testy, aren't you? First off, another thread is not authority for anything.

Secondly, show me anywhere in the first 3 of your posts you cite some "other thread" as an authority.
If you refer to your "signature," it links back to this thread.

I stand by my original statement that upon taking up your invitation for all of 3 consecutive posts, each has been thoroughly debunked as authority for the original proposition.

deny ignorance
jw



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by jdub297
 


If you're too ignorant to understand that clouds contain moisture that chemtrails affect and that is why I included the report on World water resources. Then you're obviously too ignorant to understand the rest of the reports and that they specifically state that all reports have been very carefully worded to permit the continuation of their programs.
edit on 14-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)


Except that the vast majority of atmospheric moisture, is at the lower levels, not at the levels of your "chemtrails" Its mostly cirrus ice crystals up high, nimbus and cumulonimbus clouds tend to be much lower.

You are again just posting things and having no comprehension of what you are actually posting



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 




The subject of "chemtrails" also known as "stratospheric aerosol geo-engineering" or "persistent contrails" as some might have you believe. Has recently been the topic of some controversy here on ATS. In attempting to discuss this issue during a recent thread www.abovetopsecret.com...


I personally posted lots of "chemtrail" evidence and the connection it has to geoengineering in this thread



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

clouds contain moisture that chemtrails affect and that is why I included the report on World water resources.


Where does this report mention "chemtrails?" Where does it cite any reference to "chemtrails?"

Perhaps it doesn't because they do not find them to be an actual threat! Or, more likely, because they do not exist and the government agency cited with complete responsibility for environmental preservation DOESN"T BELIEVE IN THEM?


the rest of the reports and that they specifically state that all reports have been very carefully worded to permit the continuation of their programs.


Please cite where "they specifically state" that "they" are continuing "their programs."

Who, specifically, are "they?" You've linked multiple sources that you claim represent the work of "13 agencies." Which ones, and which of their programs do THEY cite?

So far, this thread is as empty of factual support as the "chemtrail" faithful/fearful religion.

deny ignorance
jw



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by jdub297
 
Your claim that "chemtrails" is in the junk box section of ATS is just more proof of your ignorance on this topic. I have already established the real reason that "chemtrails" is in the skunk works section. Here it is again...

en.wikipedia.org...


Why cite Wikipedia or Lockheed-Martin, when ATS already provides the definition of the forum:


ATS Skunk Works: This forum is dedicated to the all-important highly speculative topics that may not be substantiated by many, if any facts and span the spectrum of topics discussed on ATS. Readers and users should be aware that extreme theories without corroboration are embraced in this forum.
....


The other SW supported their work with real research, tests, experiments and reproducible results!
You could do worse than to try to emulate them. Why not give it a shot and post some responsive citations and authority and reproducible test results?


It's self righteous arrogant people like yourself who think the whole World is there personal junk box and treat everyone and everything in it as such who are really worthless. Shame on you and your kind.


How sad. Resort to name-calling in each of your responses is a sure sign of a lack of faith in your position.

People like myself seek truth and knowledge.
Speculation and questioning are part of that, but if not backed-up with credible support, we move on to more fruitful things.

deny ignorance
jw



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
I don't understand why my previous post was blocked and marked ill mannered. But I would like to re-post the most relevant point I made which was the reason that "chemtrails" is in the skunk works section is not because it's highly speculative. But actually because "chemtrails" are a skunk works project.

en.wikipedia.org...

Skunk Works is an official alias for Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Development Programs (ADP), formerly called Lockheed Advanced Development Projects. Skunk Works is responsible for a number of famous aircraft designs, including the U-2, the SR-71 Blackbird, the F-117 Nighthawk, and the F-22 Raptor. Its largest current project is the F-35 Lightning II, which will be used in the air forces of several countries around the world. Production is expected to last for up to four decades. The designation "skunk works", or "skunkworks", is widely used in business, engineering, and technical fields to describe a group within an organization given a high degree of autonomy and unhampered by bureaucracy, tasked with working on advanced or secret projects.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

I personally posted lots of "chemtrail" evidence and the connection it has to geoengineering in this thread


Just suppose that this thread went no further than your 1st three posts.

Where's the support I've looked and asked for, but not found, in your "sources?" Please show me where they support or even just reference "chemtrails."

Otherwise, the thread is a hoax.

deny ignorance
jw



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

I personally posted lots of "chemtrail" evidence and the connection it has to geoengineering in this thread


Just suppose that this thread went no further than your 1st three posts.

Where's the support I've looked and asked for, but not found, in your "sources?" Please show me where they support or even just reference "chemtrails."

Otherwise, the thread is a hoax.

deny ignorance
jw


I posted the link to the other thread in the very first paragraph of my OP. The fact that you're too lazy to go and read the evidence I posted doesn't make it false. I am thoroughly disgusted with your abundance of ignorance, your lack of knowledge and the obvious censorship by the ATS staff. It just proves the point I made in the OP once again.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

I don't understand why my previous post was blocked and marked ill mannered.


If you do not understand, that explains much of what I've seen in these 22 pages of junk science, if it can even be called "science."


But I would like to re-post the most relevant point I made which was the reason that "chemtrails" is in the skunk works section is not because it's highly speculative.


How is the name of a forum "proof" of the subject?
Does repeating something make it seem more true in "chemtrail" physics or pseudo-science?
You did not post this in skunk works; it was placed there because that is where ATS believes it belongs.

I'm sorry you do not like their criteria or evaluation of what belongs there. Should I repeat it for you?
You surely read it because you quote some of it.


But actually because "chemtrails" are a skunk works project.


Show me one peer-reviewed article or report or reproducible test result that supports your opinion.

This alleged phenomenon has been talked about for over 20 years. Even the Lockheed projects you cite were independently-proven facts within that time span.

You cannot, can you? Can any of your original "sources?" NO!

Debunked.

deny ignorance
jw



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


No I can actually show plenty of evidence and I already have. You are just not worth my time and as you keep repeating at the end of all your posts "deny ignorance". I'm going to deny your ignorance and speak to more intelligent people without the obvious uncalled for aggressive posturing you display throughout your posts.

Deny ignorance



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


I posted the link to the other thread in the very first paragraph of my OP.


This link"Is ATS Supporting Ignorance Concerning Chemtrails? I think so..." is AN OPINION, not a source, or authority supporting your proposition.

A thread is not "evidence" of anything but a discussion.
Really, now. Don't you have ANY authority?


The fact that you're too lazy to go and read the evidence I posted doesn't make it false.


The fact that NONE OF IT actually says what you claim or supports your proposition makes it false; not the effort I expended in proving it.


I am thoroughly disgusted with your abundance of ignorance, your lack of knowledge and the obvious censorship by the ATS staff.


Again with the personal attacks when your "science" and faith let you down? That doesn't prove much about your topic. You could just quote from your "sources" an actual reference to "chemtrails." But they do not exist, do they? Nor do the quotes.


It just proves the point I made in the OP once again.


It also proves the speciousness of the entire "chemtrail" paranoia, the lack of support for the dogma itself, and the propriety of ATS' sequestration criteria and application of the T&Cs.

deny ignorance, please
jw



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seagle

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by Seagle

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by Seagle
 


You may have been duped. fair enough. You perhaps weren't to know.

But the video is is a lie since the German Govt no more admitted to chemtrails than they admitted to being responsible for Godzilla destroying New York last week.

Just goes to show: contrary to popular belief, you can't believe everything you see on youtube.


Well here is the thing you see - As I have mentioned, I didn't make the video, I found it on a link I followed that was provided by someone who sits on your side of the debate. Now, the video provides footage from a real German news program and offers an English translation. Obviously, you can't believe everything you see, read or hear, so given that a few of you (surprise, surprise) are 100% certain that it is a hoax I must assume that you all speak fluent German because otherwise there is no way you can be 100% certain of anything. So please enlighten the rest of us and provide the 'proper' German translation to prove your claims. Then we can matter to rest.


Or, maybe since you are the one claiming that video is about chemtrails, YOU should provide the proof that it actually is, rather than just mindlessly posting something that porportedly falls into your worldview.

And yes, I do speak a bit of German. However, since you are posting a video in German and you know it is abou chemtrails, then I assume that you do too


German as well, is there anything you can't do Mr Planeson Firepilot? As I said, a debunker linked to the page that led to the video so apparently the site is credible enough when it suits but an obvious hoax when the story doesn't help your quest.

I wouldn't have given it another thought until now because it certainly seems to have given the hornets nest a bit of a shake hasn't it. Whats the matter, hit a nerve did we? The video is in German, it contains an English translation, I said it was interesting. I don't speak German so I know I can't tell one way or the other but so many of the hornets seem to be able to declare it hoax with the only proof provided being some other hornets supposed translation. Perfect example of how you debunkers operate but have you noticed nobody is falling for it any more?.



Sorry, for just seeing this.

No, your video does not contain an english translation, it contains a partial translation and then chemmies have pulled yet another hoax and substituted what they wanted, in place of the real German words. That is patently dishonest of them to do so.

And if you cant speak a lick of German, then why put this stuff up. Its YOUR responsibility to verify what you post, you cant just duck behind ignorance and say its not your fault because you cant speak any German.

Correct, when we put our minds to it, there is no limit to what we can learn. Some of you chemmies should give it a try sometime. Learning about aviation is not exactly hard, but it seems to go past what chemmies can learn.
Why else would I have yet to see a chemtrailer who knowledgable about aviation.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

I can actually show plenty of evidence and I already have.


Not in your 1st three posts.

Not in response to my requests for edification if I was wrong or misunderstood the links in them.


...I'm going to ... speak to more intelligent people without the obvious uncalled for aggressive posturing you display throughout your posts.


How can asking for quotes from your links that support your proposition be "uncalled for?" Or "aggressive posturing?"

That is what science is all about, isn't it? Reproducible results? Independent analyses?

Pointing out the lack of it may be embarrassing you, but it is neither aggressive nor posturing.

Stating a position, challenging others to "debunk this" could be considered aggressive.

Hiding or running away rather than face the complete lack of support may be posturing too, though.

I am sorry for your thread.
Have fun with the "intelligent people" who think and act like you.

Deny ignorance!
jw



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Chemtrails in the news again
www.youtube.com...
Chemtrails caught on camera
www.youtube.com...
More chemtrail video evidence
www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Chemtrails in the news again
www.youtube.com...
Chemtrails caught on camera
www.youtube.com...
More chemtrail video evidence



Ahh more youtube videos. What would chemmies have without youtube. Got anymore hoaxed 777 photos that you will post and pretend to show the insides of chemtrail planes too while you are at it?
edit on 15-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Sign the current petitions to investigate chemtrails.

www.petitiononline.com... over 7000 signatures so far

www.facebook.com... Facebook petition
edit on 15-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: edit text



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join