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.

 

Chemtrail Debunkers....

page: 28
36
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
So any comment's on my link I do believe it to be a reliable source.
It was my hope that some of you here [you know who you are] would have read it and conceded that it is possible but alas it seam's that you would rather ignore it I know you've been on-line and have seen the post but your not so quick to jump on it.




posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 

The paper cited (in the CFR document) in reference to "a few hundred million dollars per year" is this:
www.osti.gov...
Of the proposal for using scattering materials to reduce solar insolation it says this:

It’s also worth noting-in-passing that the resonant transitions chosen to be intercalation-broadened – or those glassed-in dyes chosen to absorb-&-fluoresce – likely could be selected to lie exclusively in the near-UV or -IR portions of the solar spectral radiance on the Earth’s atmosphere, so that the resulting ‘spectral notching’ of sunlight as seen at or near the Earth’s surface would be invisible to people, just as the near-IR solar spectral notchings due to absorption by atmospheric H2O already are. The a s -perceive d ‘‘environmental impact’’ of such spectrally-notched insolation subtraction would thereby be essentially zero.

No clouds of material. No "chemtrails" expanding to fill the sky.

edit on 3/20/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 

Regardless of whether it's possible, is it now your contention that "chemtrails" are part of an attempt at global warming mitigation?

Or, will you swing back to another theory?

Who is conducting the present "chemtrail" program you've described in this thread?
What are they using?
Who or what are the "targets?" (e.g., people, the atmosphere, all life on Earth, morons, taxpayers)
What effects have been measured, diagnosed or verified, and by whom?
What is the intent or purpose of this program? How can we measure progress, effect and success/failure?

In short, what is your specific hypothesis?

(you don't have one, except "I know what I saw; I know how I feel.")

jw



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
So any comment's on my link I do believe it to be a reliable source.


It's a relaible source - and a subject that has been much discussed in recent years. But what is the connection with what you call chemtrails?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Wow you had that information to hand I am really impressed it never ceases to amaze me the amount of member's on these type of thread's when the subject is so say a hoax but credit where credit is due you gave me a reply and I can't fault that but what I posted was not to prove that chemtrail's exist it was just to discredit the answers so often posted in reply to my post that the cost of a chemtrail's program would be to expensive 100 mill dollar's a year is chump change to any western government also I would like to point out that the main cost is the means to undertake the operation to spray and not the material's themselves so in affect you could change the materials you use without increasing the overall cost by to much.
Secondly the other answer that you couldn't undertake a program like this including so many country's governments cooperating was also addressed in that report along with the reason's why such a program would be implemented.
So although this dose not prove in anyway that a chemtrail's program is in use it dose at the very least show that it is a possibility and it was my hope that it would stop the closed mindedness i so often find in rival's like yourself



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
once again the contrailers and their IHM have won the battle,by getting the almighty ban-hammer to descend and silence MathiasAndrew



but all you seem to have accomplished is giving ATS a bad reputation with your IHM
www.facebook.com...

Above Top Secret Radio attempts to discredit "What in the World are They Spraying?" and other geoengineering facts by What in the World Are They Spraying? on Wednesday, March 16, 2011 at 12:10pm Above Top Secret claims to be The Best in Uncensored News Information and Analysis on the internet today. While proven to be effective in the past, Saturday March 12 contradicted this claim when Michael J. Murphy was not only censored, but disconnected from the show due to him addressing truths about chemtrail/geoengineering programs. This was an obvious attempt by ATS to discredit him and his film “What in the World are they Spraying? ATS’ host, Nef unsuccessfully Argued with Murphy on almost every fact made about the science and data about the damaging chemtrail/geoengoneering programs that have recently been uncovered. While having difficulty debunking the science and facts of the film, Neff, resulted in accusing Murphy of many things including creating public panic over the questions raised about current chemtrail/geoengineering programs. He went on to claim that “people everywhere are now paranoid when they see airplanes flying above them”. After the interview, Murphy stated that “due to the monetary and political interests associated with chemtrail/geoengineering programs, we expect resistance from those who are working tirelessly to protect such interests, however, we where shocked to learn that Above Top Secret was amongst one of those groups”. He went on to state that while we encourage healthy dialog , we will not tolerate the deceptive propaganda being used to protect the interests associated with programs that are designed to protect those who are harming nature and humanity. Please take a moment to write Above Top Secret News and let them know that we will not tolerate this deceptive propaganda that is not only compromising all of us, but all of humanity. Above Top Secret News can be contacted at the following link:www.abovetopsecret.com... Please take a moment to address this serious issue. Many have written Above Top Secret, however, we have found that phone calls are very effective as well. Last time this happened the station manager was begging for people to stop calling the station. Lets light up the switchboard and let Above Top Secret know that we will not tolerate deceptive propaganda used to cover-up the biggest crime in history. Perhaps they will think twice before attempting to do another chemtrail/geoengineering hit piece. ATS phone number is: 1-877-417-2204 Michael J. Murphy truthmediaproductions.blogspot.com... www.coalitionagainstgeoengineering.org...



Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Mayura
 

"Rainbow clouds" (the technical term is iridescent clouds) like that are showing light diffraction caused by water droplets and ice crystals.
cimss.ssec.wisc.edu...
www.atoptics.co.uk...

really phage? where is the spectrographic analysis that proves those are water vapor, hmmm?
something tells me this is not complete info wheres the science [as just posting links doesn't count, does it?]


Originally posted by jdub297

1- I feel certain that the current near-hysterical acceptance of nothing more than speculation, faulty science and unsupported "research" reports has been designed to divert the attention of the less-educated, more gullible products of public education and government entitlements to believe that they are being victimized by vague, ambiguous tormentors for various, and often inconsistent, purposes.


2- As for the rest of the post, most "chemtrail" advocates are unable or unwilling to differentiate among the varied aerosols, good and bad, to which we are exposed just by living in an industrial age. Even clouds, after all, are aerosols.

3- Given that funding from limitless sources is available for innumerable causes, deserving and undeserving, there is no reason that well-organized research, and reproducible data are not available to the advocates. Just look at the AGW debate, and the hundreds of billions of dollars that are being raised and committed on either side and in between! "Chemmies" can not legitimately complain that they can't do it or lack the resources. Whislteblower statues and compensation programs are more powerful today than ever. There is no excuse NOT to have "good science," instead of YouTube and Wikipedia hearsay as your best weapon.

4- And again, as with the AGW religion, those who advocate do their best to attack the character, instead of the product, of their opponents. Trying to limit the discussion to only like-minded is not and never has been "scientific." Good science is the attempt at refutation of any given hypothesis; if you can disprove part, then it fails and you start over. "Lack of proof" looks at the problem from the wrong direction. Any given hypothesis is correct until proven otherwise. "Chemtrail" advocates should try harder to formulate a single hypothesis, and let science take over from there; you can't protect or defend a hypothesis as if it were a child.

5- I have asked many times for a "chemtrail" advocate to put forth a single hypothesis for consideration. Not a single one has - it's always this and this are doing that and that with those and those because something or some things or something else. That is a rambling word-salad, not a hypothesis.

6- Give me a theory and let's look at it piece by piece. It's what I've done for a living for over 40 years. I'm no scientist, but I know where to find them. I'm no mechanic, but I know who to ask how things work and how to build them. This is not an impossible task. They are afraid or unable to take up the challenge.



7- deny ignorance
jw


1- I feel certain that the current near-hysterical acceptance of nothing more than speculation, faulty science and unsupported "research" reports has been designed to divert the attention of the less-educated, more gullible products of public education and government entitlements to believe that all is well, god is in his heaven and TCOTBIP are looking out for our best interests.



2-As for the rest of the post, most "contrail" advocates are unable or unwilling to differentiate among the varied aerosols, good and bad, to which we are exposed just by living in an industrial age.


3-
who are you tryng to kid here? how am i or any body else going to get funding for chemtrail research from TCOTBIP? sure, make me waste my hard earned money, nice little tactic there.


4- The tactics of the AGW psudoscientific community are being used here by the contrailers and their Internet Hate Machine to quote weedwhacker [yay!!! he's here! hope you aren't sick from all those CT's you're being exposed to and continue to deny] quoting from /b/: "this is the cancer that is destroying ATS". a little more consistency?

5- patently false i am on record re my Hypothesis concerning CT's and none of you contrailers have ever responded to my allegations or if you have you avoid a straight answer to my questions.

6- see 5 and below
7- you are doing a poor job methinks,

for behold, Phage, Champion of the Contrailers
has unwittingly sown the seeds of the destruction of the Contrail Conspiracy!!!!



Coming soon:

Contrails do not Exist!!! Prove me wrong! by DerepentLeStranger
a Denial of Ignorance- wherein the contrail conspiracy is unmasked, a proposal for an experiment is provided, and the IHM is short-circuited to the dismay of it's Con-trollers



see you all there

edit on 20-3-2011 by DerepentLEstranger because: added edit



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


I hope my last post answered your question.
as to the other comment posted by another member all I will say is that is a good question and that report gave 1 possible reason personally I will say I don't know but I am doing all the research I can taking samples of rainwater from a elevated source [before you pick that apart I know it can't be 100% accurate but it is something I am able to do I have 3 samples so far taken on day's after the plane's have gone over]
I'm also trying to make sense of some extreme equation's in the formation of ice crystal's size and saturation ratio's in regard's to how quickly they disperse to below the optical threshold based on an experiment done in 1995.
The big problem here is that most of us chemie's [as we have been dubbed]are kept so wrapped up in sites like this one trying to prove they exist that most of us are sidetracked from the real question of why.
I admit that I'm not the most scientific member here on ats but I am trying to do something constructive to prove my point.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


Please.....I see nothing in that post other than abject paranoia. And misinformation.

...... if you happen to be in contact with Michael J. Murphy (since you included that diatribe about him....what a load of crock!!)...be sure to suggest to him, as well....serious mental health evaluations/consultations.

He risks (based on his latest behavior) being catalogued and pigeon-holed as just another "Charlie Sheen".......because, that is most certainly the path currently on.
edit on 20 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Wow was there really any need for your derogatory comment's there weedwacker it was kinda personnel and rather nasty to question someone's mental heath unless of course you are a doctor.
Now I'm sure that if I was to post in such a manner I would be quickly banned perhaps it would be better to question the information he has posted rather than the person who posted it.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Phage
 


Wow you had that information to hand I am really impressed...

I don't want to speak for phage, but the information Phage posted was referenced in the paper you posted under the heading "For Further Reading". It wouldn't have ben that difficult to find.

All of your information and evidence you are posting is very interesting, but it is getting far, far away from being evidence that attempts to prove that a trail coming from a plane that spreads out into a cloud is always going to be a chemtrail (which is what most chemtrailers believe).

Again, I have no doubt that chemicals can be -- and even have been -- sprayed from planes. However, there is no evidence that there is a wide-spread and systematic concerted effort being conducted to intentionally spread trails across our skies for the purposes of (pick one or more) (a) intentionally poisoning large amounts of the world's population, (b) intentionally block sunlight, or (c) intentionally covering the soil in larger areas of the country with heavy metals and other poisons.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


I agree with you that it's not evidence that one is in place but the point of posting it was to discredit some of the argument's that have been put to me as to why its not possible.
1. cost of implementing such a program is to high = 100 mill per year is chump change.
2.there is no way so many country's government's would cooperate on such a project which that report proves that it is possible and why.
It's a slow process and as I have said before I am trying to do what research I can to try and prove my point and I know from the many point's we have debated that you are not one of the members to whom I was referring to with my closed minded comment



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weed! that was quick.


Oh.....

no reasoned debate, just a general questioning of my sanity?

I've been called crazy since i was able to read, apparently reading is a sign of insanity to some.

paranoia? please elaborate it was a long post, but nowhere have i accused you of being absent in order to order CT spraying at my location, oh yes i saw 5 CT's here in PR but no WeedWhacker has nothing to do with it
[just a joke don't take it as paranoid thinking]

was going to respond more but DJcarlosa took care of that

hopefully you'll do better on my thread, i will expect you, the Mighty Phage, fire?pilot, network dude, and all the contrailers will be getting your comeuppance, having inadvertently been destroyed by one of your own!!!

OH THE IRONY!!!


oh ps re links just doing a fellow member a good turn [matthias] take it up with him when he's able to post again.

bye!


edit on 20-3-2011 by DerepentLEstranger because: added edit & additional comment



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I'm glad to see you edited your post there because this subject is a hard one to debate and I know that what ever side you are on it can get frustrating sometimes but personally attacking someone for there beliefs dose not help your point of view you are not the only member here who dose this but thankyou for editing it out



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 


TY but no need to worry about me I'm used to it [suffering fools gladly that is

y'know "that kid ain't normal instead of playing kick the can or shooting hoops like regular kids ,always gotta his nose in some book or other"

hmmm WW has edited his post, wouldn't want to get that precious gem deleted now [who's paranoid now Weed?
]

see you on my thread when i've posted



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
really phage? where is the spectrographic analysis that proves those are water vapor, hmmm?


If such analysis can prove that something is water vapour then it should be able to prove that it is something other than water vapour too.

A credible programme of such analysis would prove that chemtrails exist - all us "shills" who say "Where's the verifiable evidence??" would have to go "Oh - you were right!".

So why hasn't there been such a programme?

From the sounds of it you think it should be easy to do - I look forward to your results!



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by LogicBeforeViolence
 





And do not tell me those are contrails I SAW THEM WITH MY OWN TWO EYES DISPERSING BIGGER AND BIGGER AND BIGGER AND NOT JUST DISAPEARING


1. They are contrails.

2. You haven't read one single word posted here about how contrails form and linger have you?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by firepilot
 


So you are using the world war 2 argument which is OK but has one big flaw.
It is my belief that world war 2 fighters and bombers ran on prop engines and not jet engines so how can you compare the contrails left by 2 totally different forms of propulsion.


Both burn hydrocarbons that produce water as a waste product - it is the water that causes the phenomena, not the process that creates it.......you could go up "there" with a bucketfull of moist air produces by flatulance (assuming that process produces moist air!!) and "release" it and it would do the same thing.

This "difference" is meaningless unless you can show that the water from piston engines is significantly different from that from turbine engines.

And I'm pretty sure you won't be able to do so.



Secondly you can not discount that bombers may have been using chemical warfare in world war 2 after all mustard gas was used during the first.


And is there any evidence that they were used for this?

Possibilities are not the same as evidence that something actually happened - in WW2 a/c flew through contrails - German fighters apparently loved using them as cover to "sneak up" from the rear of bombers.

What is the evidence that anyone was exposed to chemical warfare?

there was a massive cover-up at the Italian port of Bari when a ship containing mustard gas was bombed by the Germans in 1943 - the allies shiped chemical weapons to Europe because they fully expected Hitler to use such weapons agains them - but those weapons were never used by either side - not even in the savage war between the USSR & Germany.


thirdly when you look at how a prop engine works and the exhaust system and lets face it alot of oil and unused fuel would be expelled due to the way the engine works same as you find in the exhaust of your car
Therefore this would spray out of the exhaust and create a smoky like contrail.


No - unburned fuel does not create a smokey trail - soot creates a smokey trail.


A side note i would like to point out is that you told me to go find out about contrail's but as you have stated the internet is not a reliable source of information so i went and asked someone who would know and yet again you say to me that the info is wrong.


who is that person? Why is their information more reliable than numerous scientific documents on the internet published by reputable institutions with their authors' names on them.

It is a kiss-off to say "the internet is unreliable" - "the internet" is just a means of communication - the information that you access from it is whatever quality it is regarless of the fat that you get it off the 'net.

A dodgy paper is no better for being handed to you in hard copy by someone, nor is scientific research any less valid for being in electronic format.
edit on 20-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: spelling, correct date and link for Bari disaster



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

2-As for the rest of the post, most "contrail" advocates are unable or unwilling to differentiate among the varied aerosols, good and bad, to which we are exposed just by living in an industrial age.


Did yuo mis type something here, or are you agreeing??



3-
who are you tryng to kid here? how am i or any body else going to get funding for chemtrail research from TCOTBIP? sure, make me waste my hard earned money, nice little tactic there.


There seems to be a lot of people believe in chemtrails, ther aer websites that generate income, there are DVD's being sold.

Why not organise to do it? I can imagine that $100k US would be ample to provide some credible evidence - sure it is a lot of money, but I can't see that it would be unachievable.


5- patently false i am on record re my Hypothesis concerning CT's and none of you contrailers have ever responded to my allegations or if you have you avoid a straight answer to my questions.


I haven't seen them IIRC, so please feel free to repeat them for my benefit.

Thanks


for behold, Phage, Champion of the Contrailers
has unwittingly sown the seeds of the destruction of the Contrail Conspiracy!!!!


I'm pretty sure whatever seeds he has thrown were not thrownunwittingly, and I'm pretty sure there's plenty of such seed thrown long before him!



Coming soon:

Contrails do not Exist!!! Prove me wrong! by DerepentLeStranger
a Denial of Ignorance- wherein the contrail conspiracy is unmasked, a proposal for an experiment is provided, and the IHM is short-circuited to the dismay of it's Con-trollers





I look forward to it.

but I think there might jsut be a note of sarcasm there, and I'm not going to hold my breath.....either in or out of any clouds!



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

I don't want to speak for phage, but the information Phage posted was referenced in the paper you posted under the heading "For Further Reading". It wouldn't have ben that difficult to find.


Pretty easy actually. For someone who knows what footnotes are.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 



While proven to be effective in the past, Saturday March 12 contradicted this claim when Michael J. Murphy was not only censored, but disconnected from the show due to him addressing truths about chemtrail/geoengineering programs.


Mr. Murphy behaved in a very childish, and unprofessional manner on the show. Why is it that every body else, including AllSeeingEye, who is a "chemtrail" believer were able to keep a civil discussion and behave in an adult manner?

Mr. Murphy started making unsubstantiated claims against the other caller and Neformore for merely disagreeing with his stance on the "chemtrail" theory. Instead of having a civil debate, he resorted to name calling, yelling and dictating. For somebody such as himself who is so highly regarded by "chemtrail" followers, his conduct of manner was quite embarrassing to say the least. If the evidence he provided in his movie is so sound, he should have zero reason to defend it, as the evidence would speak for itself. But apparently thats not the case, as many people have pointed out that the studies DID NOT show abnormal amounts of chemicals from the tests, but actually quite normal to below average quantities. The film sensationalized the results, and put a biased "chemtrail" spin in an attempt to persuade the more naive viewers that the results are abnormally high and is proof of "chemtrails".

Why is it that his actions, and the actions most "chemtrail" followers tend to display, usually resort to ad hominem attacks, while not being able to actually refute the evidence provided by "debunkers"?
edit on 20-3-2011 by ZombieJesus because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
36
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join