Chemtrail Debunkers....

page: 3
36
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Argyll
 

Uh, oh yes. I know how these chemtrail threads are constantly spammed, and observations made by members don't mean #, and science doesn't mean anything unless it is YOUR science and YOUR scientists that are being quoted.
Duh.



Are you questioning the science behind the formation of contrails?.........really?




posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Angelicdefender2012
 



I dont' see any letters from mechanics there, or any sample reports.

I have seen 1 letter from a "mechanic" on Rense (I think it was - maybe Carnicon), and, as a mechanic of 35 years experience my reaction was that the writer had no idea what he was talking about - he had no idea of such simple, basic things as parts lists and maintenance manuals, modification schemes, airworthiness dirctiives and service bulletins, and IIRC apparently had no idea that toilet trucks and potable water trucks are different vehicles (it shoudl be obvious why!!)

And it was anonymous - no-one ever came forward t\hat I'm aware of to defend the "accusations" the letter contained.

A direct link to these letters would be appreciated.

This anonymous post is something I can actualy relate to - this is MY experience of aircraft maintenance as a mechanic, maintenance planner, quality assurance engineer and auditor, and regulator.

also all the chemical reports I've ever seen implying nasty chemicals in the atmosphere have lacked any connection to any spraying programme - they say there's various chemnicals, which is fine as far as it goes, but they make no attempt to show a causal link to any source - they prety much simply assume they have been sprayed from a/c - no evidence is offered to show why that must be the case.

I see no link to any report at the site you linked to - can you pleae provide a direct link?

Thanks



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Argyll
 


I look out my window at work 9 hrs per day 5 days per week due to my job. On more days than not I see the "chemtrails" begin at about 7am usually. By late morning, 10 or 11am these trails, which I watch spread from a stream into a cloud, cover the whole sky as far as I can see. They are fake clouds. Not the puffy cottonball real ones I used to see. They are gray and fake, the air become thick and heavy and not normal. As soon as they begin to disperse around mid-afternoon here come the planes and the chemtrails again, Skycover again after I watch the trails become skycover. I do not knop what is is in these chemtrails, but I do know this is not normal or natural. I only became aware of this about 90 days ago by accident on the internet, but as my attention was drawn to it and I could watch it happen all day on more days than not, I now believe. I know something is very wrong. Our beautiful blue skies early in the morning are turned to gray and the sun does not shine. When it finally begins to clear the planes and the trails cover it back up. I thought people were nuts and paranoid when I came across this on the internet, but I see it all the time now that my attention has awakened to this and realize I knew something wasn't right but didn't know what. I still don't know what, but I'm getting closer.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


So Mathias Andrew,

What is going to happen on this thread? Are you going to repost everything that you have already done on previous threads? Will we be seeing the Tanker Enemy fake KC-10 video? How about the Luftwaffe Tornado Chaff video? How about the Gulfstream-1 video? Remember that you can plot its 'spraying' flightpath


flightaware.com...

Will Rod Hilderman's chemtrail videos get a look in? The popcorn is out and we all await your next post with anticipation!

TJ



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 





Chemtrails have been proven. Time and time again. I could bring you the links on ATS alone, but then, why should I?


Why don't you? Funny, but I must have missed those posts that prove chemtrails are real,so any chance you can provide some links for us.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Argyll
 

No, I am questioning the science behind chemtrails.
But, I have this suspicion that you can't help me with that, can you? Fortunately, others have been more than helpful, and they happen to be scientists that I respect. Their observations match my own.
But, thanks for caring!



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage, you are another one of the biggest debunkers of chemtrails here on ATS. Your link that states that some of the toxic fuel was used for industrial purposes does not negate the fact that they also use the fuel in military vehicles including jet airplanes.


No.
The link does not say "some" of the fuel was used for industrial purposes. I don't see anything about it being used for military use or aircraft fuel. Maybe you can provide a link that does say that?


Once drained from the green aluminum casings, the napalm, often referred to as "jellied gasoline,"
is hauled in rail tank cars to a chemical processing company in Texas, where the material is turned into a stable liquid heating fuel for industrial furnaces at a company in Louisiana.

www.onesullivan.com...

If you mean by "debunker" that I dispute the bunk of "chemtrails". You're right.

bunk (slang), absurd, ridiculous, nonsense, wikt:Bunkum (related to the word debunk)

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 3/16/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by tinker9917
 


What does a "fake cloud" look like?.......are you seeing thin wispy clouds?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Argyll
 

No, I am questioning the science behind chemtrails.
But, I have this suspicion that you can't help me with that, can you? Fortunately, others have been more than helpful, and they happen to be scientists that I respect. Their observations match my own.
But, thanks for caring!


Who are these respectful scientists that are helping you?.......... I am however pleased that you are questioning the "science" behind chemtrails, keep questioning it, and I'm sure you'll get to the truth.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 



I guess I must be new here then - 'cos I've never seen anything remotely resembling "proof" of the existance of chemtrails.

Of course I guess it depends what you mean by "chemtrails" - so here's what I think is the definition that is being suggested:

- the deliberate spraying of chemicals, or doctoring of fuel in order to create something in jet exhaust other than "normal" combustion byproducts, in jets of all shapes and sizes, military and civilian, dispersed only at high altitude, and on operations of all types - scheduled and unscheduled, passenger and freight in order to achieve 1 or more of the following ends:

1/ population control
2/ climate change (or prevention thereof)
3/ mind control
4/ amplification of the effects of HAARP
5/ poisoning soil to the benefit of Monsanto

or possibly something else I'm not aware of.

All the "proof" of chemtrails I've ever seen falls into 1 or more of the following categories:

1/ completely explained by the known characteristics of contrails

2/ misreading or misunderstanding of scientific papers suggesting that a programme spraying aerosols MIGHT be a useful way to control some aspectsof climate change (among many othe possible methods) and suggesting that they document actual operations. In here I include confusing the UN moratorium on weather modification as proof that such modification was already happening.

3/ "thought exercises" such as "Owning the weather" - a research paper often portrayed as the US miiltary's plan for weather control, in which people imagine scenarios, and what it might take to achieve them - and presenting these as if they were real programmes.

4/ "Proof by assertion" - people saying it must be so, and "the connection is obvious", and similar - assertion without verifiable evidence is not proof.

5/ REALLY, REALLY bad "science" - poor sampling techniques, failure to show cause and effect (eg there's aluminium/barium in the soil so it must have come from aircraft spraying it - huh??), misunderstanding what is actually said, misunderstanding the material that is being sampled, lack of understanding of the natural world, lack of knowledge of causes of pollution, etc.

There's probably 1 or 2 more reasons why the evidence I have seen fails....but this list covers most of my experience.

I am definitely interested in anything that doesn't repeat these errors.

Thanks in advance
edit on 16-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: spelling



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

Mat, you have misinterpreted and ignored the points from Batelle when you state:

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


You then quote a snippet of a description of an open, public and environmentally safe solution to the disposal of napalm from www.battelle.org...

The parts you highlighted do not describe a process of adding toxic waste to fuel, they talk of turning waste (old napalm) intop something that can be safely used as fuel.

What you didn't highlight, and completely ignored, were the most important parts of the the Batell program:

Battelle provided a solution that overcame safety and environmental concerns, political sensitivities and public scrutiny that had followed the project since its inception.


This was an openly-advertised, competitively bid and publicly scrutinized project. Why would you try to present it as something quite the opposite and which a reading of the entire description makes absolutely clear? Why did you choose to ignore the numerous public organizations what had a hand in verifying the environmental safety of theprogram design as well as the results?

Why would you create the perception that it resulted in toxic additives in jet fuels, when it absolutely did not, never could have and was never intended to?

What wass your intent here, Mat? What agenda, besides an "open discussion of chetrails" do you have for this thread?

deny ignorance
jw



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Excellent points



Don't expect an answer any time soon though!



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by gmac10001
 

wheres your science then i will show u mine, and you can take ur time ill wait.


Given that Mat specifically restricts this thread to "discussion of chemtrails," a scientific discussion would be off-topic. However, that does not preclude the response or reply to an "on-topic" post that is scientifically or factually inaccurate or incorrect.

Fire away, please.

deny ignorance
jw



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Argyll
 


Contrailscience is not science at all. It is a completely obvious propaganda website.
Here is proof positive of the propaganda and misleading information that your website offers

contrailscience.com...

One of the more pervasive myths regarding “chemtrails” is that current presidential candidate Dennis Kuchinich tried to have them banned by an act of congress, but was pressured by the government to modify the act to remove the mention of “chemtrails”.
So what really happened? In a nutshell, Kucinich did not write the bill (or read it, until too late), the focus of the bill is nothing to do with chemtrails, it was written by UFO enthusiasts:


But when you actually look at the credentials of the so called "UFO enthusiasts" you will find that they are highly qualified and well respected individuals in the scientific community.

www.exopoliticsinstitute.org...&M.htm#Webre

Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, is a graduate of Yale University and Yale Law School with a Juris Doctor in International Law. He is a former Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for the Study of Social Policy at Stanford Research Institute, where he directed a proposed 1977 Carter White House Extraterrestrial Communication Study He is an author, futurist, lawyer, environmentalist and a space activist who promotes an Exopolitics Initiative, and a ban on weapons and warfare in space. With others, Webre is a co-architect of the Space Preservation Treaty (www.peaceinspace.org ) and the Space Preservation Act that was introduced to the U.S. Congress by Congressman Dennis Kucinich and is endorsed by over 270 NGO's worldwide. He is the author of Exopolitics: Politics, Government, and Law in the Universe (2005). Alfred Webre is presently International Director of the Institute for Cooperation in Space (www.peaceinspace.com ), an international organization to prevent the weaponization of space, transform the war economy into a peaceful, cooperative, sustainable Space Age society, and promote cooperation amongst Life in the Universe. He is the host of a public affairs radio talk show in Vancouver, B.C. He was the first to use the term 'exopolitics' and started the first exopolitics website at: www.exopolitics.com ***

www.ontome.com...

About Dr. Carol Rosin: Dr. Carol Sue Rosin was born on March 29, 1944 in Wilmington, Delaware and is an award-winning educator, author, leading aerospace executive and space and missile defense consultant. She is a former spokesperson for Wernher von Braun and has consulted to a number of companies, organizations, government departments and the intelligence community. She is the current President of the Institute for Cooperation in Space (ICIS) which she co-founded with Alfred Webre. Dr. Rosin has received the support of various prominent individuals such as U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, and Hon. Paul Hellyer, a former Canadian Minister of National Defence. She is also a witness for The Disclosure Project.


Dennis Kucinich in his own words regarding HR 2977
www.globalresearch.ca...


"The truth is there's an entire program in the Department of Defense, 'Vision for 2020,' that's developing these weapons,"



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 



Beign a UFO enthusiast is not exclusive of holding a PhD.

As I have said before - I am a UFO enthusiast too (but I don't have a PhD!).

the point is that they prepared legislation relating to their belief in UFO's that ultimately had nothing at all to do with chemtrails, and they withdrew that wording as soon as they realised themistake they had made.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Are you seriously saying that the formation of contrails(contrailscience) is not a scientific process?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Chemtrail Debunkers Need Not Apply



Chemtrail debunkers please post your comments somewhere else. This thread is not for you. This thread is for sharing information and personal experiences of people who believe they have seen chemtrails..




There should be plenty of comments and other things in the threads listed above for you to try and debunk. So there is no need for your comments and attempts to debunk personal experiences or any information that gets posted here. Once again, please do not post any negative comments that interfere with the investigation or sharing of information.

DEBUNKERS NEED NOT APPLY


Got some bad news for ya.

This isn't a job application and as long as your thread remains on ATS, anyone that posts within the T and C of Abovetopscret.com can post on this or any other thread that is on the open forums.

Carry on.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Subtle, very subtle!!



And brutal...oh so wonderfully brutal!



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Ahhh!!.....I see what you have done!

You didn't click on the link I gave did you?....the site "contrailscience" was not linked by my self, the name I gave to my link was "contrail science" which concisely explains contrail science......sorry mate..... but if you cannot do simple "click" verify/research then your credibility is shot.
edit on 16/3/2011 by Argyll because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Hi
I see both kinds one after the other, some make clouds and some look regular.
It starts as a nice clear day then bam 20 come by to make clouds.
I need to see the skies and this intentional clouding sucks.

I think every one can agree that we don't like it.






new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join