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: 35
52
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
I could'nt deny that there is somebody spraying my sky with something coming out of airplanes, bcause them airplanes occasionally paint realy strange things into the sky, like rings, ridiculoes small in size, and fans, and grid patterns. Its ridiculous. Sometimes I believe those pilotes want the public to finaly wake up and notice that there is something going on which is not of usual nature.Sometimes you see three or four planes at once, sone in one direction, the othes in the other one somewhere in the distance they turn around and fly past in the other direction. Sometimes their "contrail" even stops in mid flight and starts again some distance further. One can sit for hours and watch them deliberetely cover the sky. And then, one some days, one sees nothing. Not one stripe across the sky, allthough one sees airplanes flying, but not so many. I cant understand that people do not recongnize the fact that they are being sprayed. Maybe that is one of the effects of the stuff that is being sprayed, I dont know. Since the phenomenon caught more attention lately, I blieve the forces that are behind it are sending agents into Blogs and Forums and all over the internet to deny and confuse the subject.
edit on 26-3-2011 by CarlitosAmsel because: (no reason given)


How can one deny something, that one sees with his own eyes? One cant. I grew up with contrails. When I was a boy in Germany, military jets where all over the sky, breaking the sound barrier with a great BOOOM that made the window panes rattle in their frames and the cuttlery clatter in the kitchen. I was liyng in the grss for countless hours, watching them jets zoom around and whizz past like arrows, and, yea, sometimes the did leave a longer contrail behind then at other times, but you NEVER saw them last as long as they do today.
edit on 26-3-2011 by CarlitosAmsel because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2011 by CarlitosAmsel because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2011 by CarlitosAmsel because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
It's worth noting that Mathias declined to engage in a discussion on why the things people see and call chemtrails can't all just be contrails (mind, so have all the other chemtrails believers). Normally, when proposing a new hypothesis, the very first thing one does is demonstrate why the existing theory is wrong and cannot explain all observed facts. It's all well and good saying this or that could be happening, but when the purpose of the hypothesis is to explain an observation (chemtrails) then surely the first stage is to show they cannot be contrails? But no-one has ever done that - certainly not in any semi-scientific manner. Maybe there's a reason?



Its also worth noting that you are still here Essan. You made it clear that you were completely bored of this topic some 20 days ago yet here you are still going strong and posting more than anyone. Why is that?
edit on 26-3-2011 by Seagle because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by CarlitosAmsel
...How can one deny something, that one sees with his own eyes? One cant. I grew up with contrails. When I was a boy in Germany, military jets where all over the sky, breaking the sound barrier with a great BOOOM that made the window panes rattle in their frames and the cuttlery clatter in the kitchen. I was liyng in the grss for countless hours, watching them jets zoom around and whizz past like arrows, and, yea, sometimes the did leave a longer contrail behind then at other times, but you NEVER saw them last as long as they do today.

It has already been well-established that contrails have lasted for hours, even on the past. On this thread (or perhaps the other similar thread that's been popular lately), there have been links to scientific studies done in the early 1970s that make reference to "contrails that persist for hours", and make reference to contrails that spread out into cirrus-cloud overcast.

There are also links to anecdotal information from WWII bomber pilots who said that long-lasting contrails produced by their planes were a problem for them because enemy fighter planes could follow those trails and find them.

I have my own memories, too. I grew up in a rural area in the 1970s and I remember farmers complaining on the TV farm reports that contrails lasting for hours were making for more overcast clouds which partially blocked the Sun (farmers usually like Sun).

There are definitely more trails today than in the past, but there is also (not coincidentally) a lot more passenger airline traffic today than in the past.


edit on 3/26/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 





And they also like to deem anyone of an opposing view point to be unintelligent, naive fools. Who are gullible, uninformed and/or misrepresenting the facts. Along with a long list of other derogatory terms that end with things like con artists and even dis-info agents.


Funny you would say something like that, because you do the same thing. Here let us see what we got....



You're being very closed minded and stubborn about something you know very little about obviously.


Here is a bit more....




So far you have shown no proof that I am wrong. Like I said before...PROVE IT. Otherwise it's just your faith based opinion. Your persistent contrail "religion" is based on faulty predictions, limited study and inaccurate data.


So as you can see you aren't any better then the people you have problems with. Why is that?



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Do you really want to use IPCC as a source? Maybe you have forgotten but IPCC was part of the Al Gore global warming debacle, and they also became co winners of a Nobel Prize with Al Gore. So IMO the IPCC is not a very good source, but that's your choice and if that is what works for you then good for you.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seagle

Its also worth noting that you are still here Essan. You made it clear that you were completely bored of this topic some 20 days ago yet here you are still going strong and posting more than anyone. Why is that?


MJ12 said if I don't keep posting they'll make my Mother's house vanish in a cat 9.8 earthquake

edit on 26-3-2011 by Essan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Here this is something that may interest you...

www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu...

It has info and pics for you, and this is from Patrick Minnis from NASA Langley Research Center.

Enjoy the reading...



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Let me add a little to your post...

This was post above, but I feel it works here also...

www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu...



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Don't want to upset the handlers now do you? MJ12 classic one..


S&F just for that alone.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 
What am I supposed to find that is important in that report? That study of man made contrail cirrus doesn't disprove geoengineering or that what they call contrails aren't actually chemtrails. I doubt NASA would ever use the word chemtrail even if it admitted to a spray program.

I do see them repeat the statement that there is a need for more study, better models and limited funding. After nearly 50 years of knowing the seriousness of persistent contrails impact on the environment, still no one is taking it serious enough to do the proper studies and tests. Why doesn't that report have a scientific analysis of the chemical makeup of those clouds? Most proper studies (especially by NASA would cover all bases) It seems strange that their studies on man made cirrus clouds were done in such an incompetent way this time doesn't it?

www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu...

Future Research • Improvement of modeling - Need better weather models - Include radiation/ temperature change estimates - Funding very limited in US - work continues with vigor in Europe


EDIT: By the way all those old pictures of contrails don't prove that they persisted so they are really not valid pictures. Most of the old pictures show the plane still in view which means the contrails were just made. Others I have seen posted actually show smoke from artillery and mortar fire. Then there are blatant photo shop pictures. None of the old pictures I have seen posted show they same type of persistent contrail we see today. Totally bogus examples and clutching at straws to use those pictures as a comparison.
edit on 26-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add text



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Show me a report with the proper data if you want to prove something to me. Don't show me incomplete studies that need more tests and need more funding. Show me the latest aerosol sampling reports with the chemical and physical properties of the clouds included. Why hasn't NASA or some other agency like the EPA or a private company in charge of air quality sampling, like Battelle, put all the rumors and conspiracy theories to rest yet by releasing a proper study?
edit on 26-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: edit text



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Wow! you do have a one track mind don't you? Funny how when shown the evidence that you cannot deny you simply pull up stakes and start a new thread where you post the same thing in every thread except you do change the heading thinking people will think your new thread is about something else until you get there and by golly it is the same thread as all of your previous threads.Try finding real evidence that you can use to back up your claims and please quit posting videos that have been shown and debunked. Think you should check out some of the other threads on this subject it could help in the future.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 





None of the old pictures I have seen posted show they same type of persistent contrail we see today. Totally bogus examples and clutching at straws to use those pictures as a comparison.


Obviously the contrails aren't like the ones we see today. Well let's see here the number of planes has grown compared to days of old. Also the jet engines have changed over the years. So how can you compare contrails from the past to what you are seeing today without accounting for the changes in aviation.Clutching at straws seems to be something you are doing very well. Keep up the good work.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 





That study of man made contrail cirrus doesn't disprove geoengineering or that what they call contrails aren't actually chemtrails. I doubt NASA would ever use the word chemtrail even if it admitted to a spray program.


Since chemtrails are so widely known now why doesn't chemtrail investigators come forward and show the proof that all chemtrailers claim is out there yet not one extensive study where there have been samples that were taken from the so called chemtrails itself and not from the soil or water because those are not directly from the chemtrail.All I ask is show your best evidence and see what happens since your so certain chemtrail are not contrails.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 



Since chemtrails are so widely known now why doesn't chemtrail investigators come forward and show the proof that all chemtrailers claim is out there yet not one extensive study where there have been samples that were taken from the so called chemtrails itself and not from the soil or water because those are not directly from the chemtrail.All I ask is show your best evidence and see what happens since your so certain chemtrail are not contrails.

It would make more sense if the people in charge of that kind of thing would do it and speak openly about the results. That is unless they are trying to hide something. It is well known that no one can fly behind a military plane to collect samples. The air space is restricted. The only people with the ability to get authorization should be the one to test it.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
HERE ARE THE 3 BEST DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE VIDEOS IMO....

What in the World are They Spraying?

www.youtube.com...

Aerosol Crimes - Clifford Carincom

www.youtube.com...

Rosalind Peterson The chemtrail cover up

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
 


My words make no implicit claim that it is happening in this case. But since there is proof that it has happened in the past. I have a right to be highly suspicious that it is happening again in this case.


Mat, you can not escape the inconsistencies in your posts just by saying they didn't happen.

Here is exactly what you said:

protect our selves from people that disregard the rights of others and do not acquire proper informed consent when conducting experiments at our expense.


Those are statements of present perception and present action. Your denial is disingenuous.

Yet, in your denial you implicitly acknowledge that these are past actions that support your present belief that "chemtrails" are happening now. Pretty slim grounds to justify such hysterics.

jw



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
I posted this at another thread here on ATS on atmospheric modification but I'll add it here as well due to its relevence:

Geoengineering/atmsopheric modification researchers:

Take the time to read the link below. It is very eye opening as regards some of the disinfo efforts now being used to try and keep these programs in the dark for as long as possible. It mentions good old Patrick Minnis of NASA which I'm sure some of you must be aware and his attempts over at chemtrail central to downplay and marginalize the efforts of those who have beome aware of A.M. Very eye opening, perhaps if you feel you have seen those very efforts here at ATS, this will give you a little more heads up as to the massive disinfo efforts out there to try and keep these programs under wraps for as long as possible.

allaircraftarenotinvolved.freeforums.org...



edit on 26-3-2011 by Tecumte because: link added



signature:


edit on 26-3-2011 by Tecumte because: link corrected



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

I still stand by the opinion that chemtrails are real. For what purpose I don't really know.


OK. So, now you admit after 34 pages of desperation that all you have is an opinion and no evidence that "chemtrails are real."

You even elaborate that you reject some theories completely, and "don't really know" what the consequences are of these things you believe in, but can't prove.

So, why title this thread, "Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering aka "Chemtrails" DEBUNK THIS !!!!;" didn't you just do that yourself?

deny ignorance.

jw


edit on 26-3-2011 by jdub297 because: sp



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

How about the fact every single one of you have been saying that there is not planes that spray.


Mat, you know that is false. Planes have sprayed all kinds of things for decades. I've seen no one here dispute that.

Sadly for you, that does not prove "chemtrails."


The list shows then spraying for different purposes. Not just for insects. They sprayed oil dispersant into the gulf also. All they need to do is change the spray for whatever it is they want to do.


Again, So what? Please state a hypothesis if you are going to stand on the assertion that planes are being specially fitted with "chemtrail" devices. What are the devices; they don't use the same ones for fire retardant, insect eradication and oil dispersal.

What are they spraying? What are they accomplishing?

What are the measurable effects?

jw


edit on 27-3-2011 by jdub297 because: punctuation



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join