It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Chemtrail Debunkers....

page: 14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:41 PM
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

So chemtrails started increasing the incidence of asthma from 1960, and there was no effect from, say, automobile and industrial pollution?

Where did you get 1960 from? The quote from the CDC that I posted stated that the asthma rates went up from 13.7 million in 1993-1994 to 15 million 15 years later. That's an increase of 1.3 million in 15 years starting at about the time chemtrails have been reported to have started. I'm sure automobile/industrial pollution has helped that along, but the increase and the timing are too coincidental. Where did you get 1960 from again?

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:46 PM

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by firepilot

Starred because you admitted the mistake and publically corrected it - something Matty could take lessons on!

I have always said that if I post something that is incorrect, I will always acknowledge the correction and own up. I have challeged chemtrailers as long as I have been on here, that if I post something in correct, especially about aviation, weather, etc, that i will take the correction and not hide from it.

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:46 PM
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Yeah -t's tough when people ask you to provide actual proof for your baseless assertions!

That's not the point and you know it. And the fact that you continue to be derisive about it tells me all I need to know about you and your agenda. I'm kinder and more open to the skeptics who say "I don't believe in them but am open to the possibility." Your group however derides, debases, and uses phrases like "baseless assertions" "Crazy", etc.

Deny Ignorance? That is the most ignorant kind of behavior of them all.
edit on 17-3-2011 by coyotepoet because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:48 PM
reply to post by coyotepoet

I got 1960 from the link you provided to the CDC - to the report "Surveillance for Asthma -- United States, 1960-1995 ", and from there to table 10 showing asthma death rates per 1,000,000 population at

the rates were highest I conclude that you think that that is when chemtrails were making people asthmatic - did I misunderstand you?

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:50 PM
reply to post by coyotepoet

Here's what else the CDC says about asthma

Self-Reported Asthma Cases

* Rates increased 75% between 1980 and 1994. This increase was evident across all races; both sexes; and all age groups. Self-reported rates were 50.8 per 1,000 among whites and, and 57.8 per 1,000 among blacks.

Office Visits

* The number of doctor's office visits to treat asthma more than doubled between 1975 and 1995. These increases were evident in all groups of races, both sexes, and all age groups.
Seems the apparent increase in asthma started before "chemtrails" did. It would seem that something else is responsible. But wait, there's more. It seems that between 1995 and 1999 rates declined.

Pretty steady 2001-2004

edit on 3/17/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:51 PM
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

.so I conclude that you think that that is when chemtrails were making people asthmatic - did I misunderstand you?

Yes you do misunderstand me. Read the quote I posted again.

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:52 PM

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Yeah -t's tough when people ask you to provide actual proof for your baseless assertions!

That's not the point and you know it.

I know no such thing - as far as I am concerned the provision of evidence is the ONLY point.

Provision of verifiable evidence would prove your case. Period. You'd get no furtehr argument from me, or, I suspect, many other debunkers.

It is THE ONLY thing you are actually being asked for!!

And the fact that you continue to be derisive about it tells me all I need to know about you.

Yep - it shows that I'm learning from experience - I keep asking, and I'm no longer surprised when the question is sidestepped.

I wish some chemtrail proponents would learn from experience too!

edit on 17-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:56 PM
reply to post by coyotepoet

I read your quote - you selectively took a time period when asthma increased, and selectively ignored that the increase was to levels that were less than existed in 1960-62.

Why is it that you think the increase in various periods prior to 1995 is due to chemtrails (whcih, as phage noted is befoer chemtrials were supposedly started!), but not the very highest levels, which existed in 1960-62?

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Evil3unnie
reply to post by gmac10001

I just watched this happen yesterday. An airplane flew by my bedroom window early that morning and within a few minuets you could see the chem-trail get bigger and bigger and just hung in the sky like a huge cloud for about 2 hours. This is the first time I have actually witnessed this and I knew it wasn't normal I even woke my girl friend up so she could see what a real chem trail looked like. Anyone who says these things aren't real
I saw it with my own two eyes not going to convince me otherwise.
edit on 17-3-2011 by Evil3unnie because: (no reason given)

Could you tell me what the air temps and humidity were approx. 20-30,000 feet above your bedroom window?

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:08 PM
reply to post by djcarlosa

After these planes go over within half an hour i get a strange metallic taste in my mouth followed by a cracking headache after 2 hours if out going to pick up my child from school I'm struggling for breath as if I can't get enough oxygen

If the symptoms you describe were caused by planes spraying chemicals, then millions of people worldwide would be reporting those very same long could any government keep that quiet?

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:27 PM
reply to post by General.Lee

Living in AZ, we have (had) some of the driest, clearest skies in the nation, if not the world. We frequently have skies that are clear blue as far as the eye can see. If the skies were conductive to creating clouds, then they would have clouds. A little heat from a jet engine is not going to create enough moisture from out of "thin air" to create a blanket of clouds a mile or more across. The normal contrail is condensation. You get the same effect when you exhale outside when it's cold out. You can see your breath. It quickly dissipates, it doesn't transform into a layer of fog 10 feet wide.

I take it you don't have a great deal of surface water in Arizona?....that is what would be needed along with humidity to produce clouds.

A jet engine does not produce moisture "out of thin air", the exhaust fumes contain moisture which freeze and crystallize due to the temps in the air at that altitude.

Your analogy of breathing outside in the cold air doesn't apply.........have you any idea how cold it is at 30-35,000 feet?

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:31 PM

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by Phage

I'm not sick either but that doesn't meant that others aren't. A scientific study of 2 people-that goes a long way.

Not sure yet, but I think I might have a bit if a cough coming on [cough cough].

Looks like one in three people are ill.

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:46 PM

Originally posted by donatellanator

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by donatellanator

Thanks for your input. I do have some evidence of people putting toxic waste in the fuel.

Battelle scientists at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory led a cooperative effort to eliminate Department of Defense stockpiles of napalm from the Vietnam War. After three other contractors failed Battelle provided a solution that overcame safety and environmental concerns political sensitivities and public scrutiny that had followed the project since its inception. Our process not only disposed of more than 2.7 million gallons of the dangerous substance on schedule and with an outstanding safety record it also recycled the napalm and blended it with other industrial waste products to make a specification fuel with exceptionally high thermal energy value.

That is great. I like to see there is evidence. I know for a fact that military jets dump extra fuel in the ocean and on land. They waste taxpayers money while endangering residences. I have seen this happen personally.

The only evidence is that they blended napalm, which is nothing more than a fuel itself, with jet fuel to create new fuel. Recycling old fuel based material into new fuel. And when its burned, thats it. Nope, dont see any evidence of chemtrails. Unless you want to use a very broad paintbrush and call any and all exhaust "chemtrails".

but rather than going on a free for all in debunking, a simple question to ask: How can something sprayed 30,000ft + affect you down below it? If you are so worried about airplane exhaust, I'd be more worried at whats at ground level: cars, trucks, manufactoring plants, cigarettes, cigars, etc. Plenty of killer substances at ground level. I'd recommend a good gasmask when you step out into the street. You'd plotz if you'd see just what kind of chemicals and metals and toxic materials get spewed from the exhaust pipes of millions cars, trucks, buses, trains, generators, etc.

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:51 PM
I refrained from saying what I'm about to say because I can`t find the videos any more. It was about this guy who was working as a airliner mechanic or what ever you whanna call it and he was convinced that there was chem trails being made from planes he had worked on. This was about 5 years ago. He had sneeked in a cam or phone and had filmed a short vid inside the wing of the plane. And according to him there were tanks that were not supposed to be in there. He had made his own little study with vids and all. It was very interesting. But very unfortunate I can`t find it anymore.

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:54 PM
reply to post by coyotepoet

most of which is from the debunkers immediately attacking anybody that posts their agreement with the chemtrail phenomenon, effectively stopping any kind of real discussion on the issues by forcing the "chemmies" as we are derisively called to go on the defensive and keeping us from engaging in any meaningful discussion amongst ourselves which was the whole point of Mathias asking you guys to take your attacking BS elsewhere.

This IS a public forum.

If the "evidence" presented by the "chemmies" is factual, or even has anything to do with the topic at hand, you would have absolutely no reason to go on the defense. If you had actual evidence, and not just your emotions and gut feelings, I believe a meaningful discussion could be possible, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

If science and facts keep you from having a "meaningful discussion", there are plenty of other forums that censor dissent of the "chemtrail" agenda, and is a back-patting fest for emotions and "gut feelings".

Don't forget, the people responsible for this "theory" NEED you. Without you the likes of Carnicom, Hilderman, Tanker Enemy, etc would be nothing, nobody would listen to them, and they would not have the extra income you generate for them.

Chemtrail Shopping

But don't worry, you don't have to click "add to cart" to line their pockets, just linking to there youtube videos will do the trick.

I've always been intrigued why the "chemmies" look to youtube as a be all, end all for evidence. I believe I have found out why.


Many websites use AdSense to monetize their content; it is the most popular advertising network. AdSense has been particularly important for delivering advertising revenue to small websites that do not have the resources for developing advertising sales programs and sales people.


Some webmasters invest significant effort into maximizing their own AdSense income. They do this in three ways:[citation needed]
1. They use a wide range of traffic-generating techniques, including but not limited to online advertising.
2. They build valuable content on their websites that attracts AdSense advertisements, which pay out the most when they are clicked.
3. They use text content on their websites that encourages visitors to click on advertisements. Note that Google prohibits webmasters from using phrases like "Click on my AdSense ads" to increase click rates. The phrases accepted are "Sponsored Links" and "Advertisements".

Mathias must be making them a fortune!

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Angelicdefender2012
Below is a link to some serious evidence of Chemtrails. And I can honestly tell you......I did not beleive it at first either, however, I've been paying very close attention to the skys.....and have done some serious digging to find out the truth! And I'm now a firm believer in Chemtrails!

geeze, now I have read everything. A "black line" the plane follows to spray?
I just read that part and nearly fell off my chair laughing. I've seen that too. Know what it is? A shadow!
When the sun lines up just right with the plane and the contrail, add a little haze, and you can get a nifty shadow ahead of the plane. Nothing sinister. With all the technology airplanes use now, why the hell would they need to follow a visible black line to be projected in front of it? I thought GPS, radar, radio beacons, etc are enough for guiding planes in flight. Also, no real sources. I wonder why?

Now this link have 2 letters from US Airline Mechanics and to the left of this are lab tests findings. be the judge!

Oh good lord! more pictures of contrails! Run for your lives! Contrails!! Those sites are a joke.

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:58 PM
reply to post by coyotepoet

Paranoid a bit tonight, huh? Really, we don't have a master, we have the facts from decades of science research that has been able to show that planes have exhaust that sometimes causes atmospheric water vapor to condense visibly.

We are not rude. We ask questions. We answer the questions asked of us. We use citations that are about the topic, and not just opinion. We have seen the same wrong statements made, heard the stories of mistaken perceptions, and have seen all the videos and websites produced as proof for the other side. We want only to make people learn something about the atmosphere and aviation, because it is very obvious that there is a real lack of working knowledge of these two areas by those on the "chemtrail" side.

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:02 PM
reply to post by jdub297

Bravo, extremely well-said.

I get frustrated that after concerted effort to look into what is really behind these conspiracies we don't seem to get much closer to an answer than we were before.

We have some bits of the puzzle, but most of them elude us. And instead we are spending all our time going over the same tired old pseudoscientific crap. As someone said to me recently, this chemtrail nonsense is "knowable". There are very specific allegations made about the concentrations of aluminium in groundwater as a result of so-called "chemspraying". This is knowable. It's a simple measurement. And it's inexpensive.

What I failed to comprehend however, is how this is important. Even if they are spraying aluminium, 8% of the ground on which we walk is composed of aluminium.

It's all so much distraction from the real issues.

In fact the only "conspiracy" I've personally sorted out to my own satisfaction is the crop-circle one.

To me "chemtrails" are still wide open. I don't know who is ultimately behind promulgating the conspiracy theory.

It would be nice to think that more careful investigation will lead to uncovering what is really going on.

The really frightening thing is the information we do know about. Billions of dollars of tax money being spent on programs we know nothing about, the results of which remain classified and the outcomes of which are rarely seen except when something goes terribly wrong. This we do know.

The thing that worries me even more is that within these programs there are just as likely to be paranoid people who don't know what everyone is up to just as there are in the general public. How much of our hard earned money are they spending on trying to figure out what everyone else is up to? And how much tax money is spent chasing down conspiracies that pop up on sites like ATS due to paranoid people within the military or other govt depts?

The only part of your post that I couldn't agree with is the part about whistleblower's protections being strong. I think the government will keep secret whatever it can get away with, and it will prosecute and threaten whistleblowers to the greatest extent they can get away with. The Manning case should illustrate this amply, assuming for a moment that we are being told the truth there either!

"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." - Henry Kissinger (famous for, amongst other things, appearing with Rumsfeld in an April 1st "documentary" claiming that the moon landings were hoaxed!)

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:12 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:19 PM
reply to post by coyotepoet

edit on 17-3-2011 by ZombieJesus because: nevermind

<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in