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: 41
36
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   


I know: The weather balloon proves contrails could not form when they videoed so they are spraying SOMETHING.



And again....can you explain this view and elaborate on how you arrived at this conclusion

edit on 24-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze
I know: They have changed the radars so it can't be detected.

I'm not sure how you can "know" radars have been changed. Do you have evidence that someone has "changed" the radars?


I know: The weather balloon proves contrails could not form when they videoed so they are spraying SOMETHING.

Atmospheric conditions can change on a very localized basis. For example, a plane could be flying through and area of the sky in which the conditions are not conducive to contrails, and then suddenly fly into a highly localized area in which the conditions are favorable, then fly back into an area that is not.

The result would be a plane that is making no trail, then makes one for a short while, then stops making a trail again. This is completely normal and not terribly uncommon. The links below all show that the conditions conducive to trail production can be highly localized.

see figure 2 and figure 3 here, with an explanation of intermittent trails:
www.docweather.com...

If you scroll down on this link, there is another explanation of intermittent trails:
science-edu.larc.nasa.gov...

or this picture:
Flicker - On the Border


edit on 3/24/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
GOOGLE:...USAF C-130 MODULAR AERIAL SPRAY SYSTEM (MASS)


www.holmestead.ca...


www.youngstown.afrc.af.mil...


"Six Modular Aerial Spray Systems (MASS) are available at the 910 AW to conduct aerial spray missions.
Each system can be configured with up to four 500 gallon tanks for a total volume of 2000 gallons.





Further confirmation of this particular aerial spray system is found at this United States Air Force Reserve, 910th Airlift Wing of Youngstown, Ohio website: Air Force Reserve - MASS. This page will open in a separate window and may be kept open, minimized or closed to return here. Here the first page is quoted in part:


edit on 24-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: edit text

edit on 24-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add link



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Did you miss the part about putting forth some thoughts and commentary of your own? Others cant speak for you



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   


C-130 spraying town
www.youtube.com...




www.youngstown.afrc.af.mil...


The Official Web SIte of Youngstown-Warren Air Reserve Station



Library > Fact Sheets > Aerial Spray Mission

Aerial Spray Mission

Posted Printable Fact Sheet

MISSION
The Department of Defense (DoD) tasks the 910th Airlift Wing at Youngstown Air Reserve Station (YARS), Ohio to maintain the DoD's only large area fixed-wing aerial spray capability to control disease vectors, pests of vegetation and undesirable vegetations, and to disperse oil spills in large bodies of water. Missions may be executed in combat areas, on DoD installations or in response to Presidential declared disasters/emergencies.

UNIT, AIRCRAFT, AND PERSONNEL
The 757th Airlift Squadron pilots, navigators, flight engineers, spray operators/loadmasters, and entomologists conduct aerial spray missions using four C-130H aircraft equipped with the Modular Aerial Spray System (MASS). These systems are maintained by 910th MX support personnel assigned to the spray mission. YARS houses one of four EPA-approved Training Centers for DoD Pesticide Applicator Certification serving both the continental U.S. and overseas DoD pest management facilities.


This shows the spray system is in existence and is used for mulitple purposes. All they need to do is change the spary for whatever they want to do.
edit on 24-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add video


Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.
edit on 3/24/2011 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Does it seem strange that you are offering up a C-130 unit since none of the photos of I have seen of "chemtrail" planes however, are C-130s. Nor do they fly at the altitudes of jet airliners, or at the speeds either. They generally fly much lower, especially in the missions they are talking about.

ACTUAL real spraying is done from LOW level.

But thanks for debunking those who insist it is done from high speed jet aircraft up high.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

I don't know if anyone ever said that there is no such thing a plane that could spray. Obviously there are planes spraying, and planes have been spraying various things for decades. Spraying fertilizer on plants, spraying for insect infestation (such as spraying for the "gypsy moth" where I live), and spraying for other ostensibly helpful reasons.

However, please help me understand how this is evidence of a widespread covert campaign of spraying that shows up in the sky as things that people are calling persistent contrails.

Please connect those dots.


edit on 3/24/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Look, you made two elaborate posts here which say this:

"Humans sometimes use spraying technique for pest control".

This is a valid statement. Now, what was your point with regards to "chemtrails"? I used a fumigator last month in my friends' house, does it prove anything?



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Videos speak for themself




edit on Thu Mar 24 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: --Off Topic, One Liners and General Back Scratching Posts--



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Look, you made two elaborate posts here which say this:

"Humans sometimes use spraying technique for pest control".

This is a valid statement. Now, what was your point with regards to "chemtrails"? I used a fumigator last month in my friends' house, does it prove anything?


Exactly. As I said in my post above, we have spraying from the air every couple of year to control the infestation of gypsy moths. But I don't understand what that has to do with chemtrails.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Mathias, these videos show that you are really at the end of the line in this pretty fruitless discussion. In video one, the camera zooms on truly evil device, that looks like it's primed to poison all of humanity... Except it's the Pitot tube, the standard equipment on most aircraft (in various modifications) used to gauge the craft speed:

en.wikipedia.org...

No amount of twilight zone type of music and dramatic posters makes "chemtrails" anywhere near a possibility.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

Videos speak for themself


Which means either you do not understand what you are posting, because your videos have nothing to do with "chemtrails," or you have resorted to your former tactics of cut and paste word/video/picture "salads" of anything that googles-up on your desperate key-word search for support.

Why not just state your theory, and post your support?

You have specifically stated that you believe that "geo-engineering" is part of your "hypothsesis."

Please state your hypothesis. You can tie-in C-130s if you'd like, but that would undermine your premise.

deny ignorance

jw

edit on 24-3-2011 by jdub297 because: syntax



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


in your first video, there is a picture of tanks on a plane:

These tanks were not for chemical spraying. They were filled with water, which could be transferred between the various tanks for the purpose of testing the plane under different shifting weight conditions -- i.e. , the water was ballast.

That video also had this picture:


which is a refueling pod.:


It has nothing to do with spraying chemicals

..and there was this picture:


which also isn't a plane that sprays, but rather a plane that takes samples from the air for atmospheric testing.

This plane belongs to the Brookhaven National Laboratory, and they are conducting research into air pollution and greenhouse gasses:
www.bnl.gov...



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 

The NWS radar baloons showed contrails could not form, yet there are lines in the sky. If they are not contrails what are they?
...
... weather balloon data not addressed ...

... From very first post I said the game changer was the weather ballon data.


It's too bad you chose not to read the posts in this thread, or you would know that the NWS weather balloon data are sketchy, at best, as predictors of contrail formation and persistence.

It's here in this thread, thoroughly explained, with cites and links to authority.

Unlike most "chemtrail" advocates (your buddy Mat uses the term - interchangeably - to describe what you insist is "geo-engineering") the responses here have been supported with citations to authority, links to relevant pages, and explanations of how and why they are responsive to (and usually dispositive of) hyped-up "chemtrail" misrepresentations.

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

It's too bad you chose not to read the posts in this thread, or you would know that the NWS weather balloon data are sketchy, at best, as predictors of contrail formation and persistence.

It's here in this thread, thoroughly explained, with cites and links to authority.

Unlike most "chemtrail" advocates (your buddy Mat uses the term - interchangeably - to describe what you insist is "geo-engineering") the responses here have been supported with citations to authority, links to relevant pages, and explanations of how and why they are responsive to (and usually dispositive of) hyped-up "chemtrail" misrepresentations.

Deny ignorance.

jw


It's too bad for 20 pages you haven't been able to debunk it.. dust deride and name call


But I'm just a "paraniod delusional chemmie"... what do I know


I have read every single source phage and weed have come up with, and I started out believing chemtrails was a hoax, just contrails....

Well... after openmindedly reading both sides.. starting out believeing contrails explained it... I'm now a proud, "parinoid, delusional chemmie".... who believes in geoengineering


But If i used any spurrius terms for anyone who believes geoengineering is just contrails... well.. My post would be removed... or I would be banned like many of my friends... they are dropping like flies! Why? because they deny ignorance and question.

By the way, geoengineering does not have a hyphen in it... here's the CFR extraveganza on geoengineering in case you want to know how they globalists spell it and how people with an open mind can find papers on it.CFR geoengineering webpage

It has some greatist hits like how to proceed with doing it:

Workshop on Unilateral Planetary-Scale Geoengineering: Planning for Next Steps
Roundtable Meeting

May 5, 2008

and how to do it on a planet wide scale

Geoengineering: Workshop on Unilateral Planetary Scale Geoengineering

and how to get around getting it regulated by governments:

Workshop on Unilateral Planetary-Scale Geoengineering: Framing the Foreign Policy Problem-Avoiding and Regulating Unilateral Geoengineering

and how to work it into global governance:

Workshop on Unilateral Planetary-Scale Geoengineering: Geoengineering and the Challenge of Global Governance


Yep, nothing to look at here people.. move right along, the globalist have your best interests at heart and would NEVER do anything to hurt you...


“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” - Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund – quoted in “Are You Ready For Our New Age Future?,” Insiders Report, American Policy Center, December ’95


“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner – CNN founder and UN supporter – quoted in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June ’96


“The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man.” – Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller foundation


“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.” – Jacques Cousteau


“…The first task is population control at home. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size.” – Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, p.130-131


“Eugenics views itself as the fourth leg of the chair of civilization, the other three being a) a thrifty expenditure of natural resources, b) mitigation of environmental pollution, and c) maintenance of a human population not exceeding the planet’s carrying capacity. Eugenics, which can be thought of as human ecology, is thus part and parcel of the environmental movement.”
- John Glad “Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century.”

link

Now I ask you IF GEOENGINEERING HAS BEGUN who would have the power to autorize it in the United States of America? Obama and his Science Tsar Holdren... does our Science Tsar Holdren hold these beliefs stated above?
Glad you asked. Yes he does, and he's believes in man made global warming also:

In 1969, writing with Paul R. Ehrlich, Holdren claimed that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come."[9] In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many"[10]. Currently, the U.S. population is 306,900,000[11]. In 1977 he co-authored (with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich) Ecoscience[12], which discussed the possible role of a "planetary regime" in enforcing population control.
link

Now I'm going to make a prediction. This thread has not moved much all day. After this post there will be a ton of small posts pushing this back up in the thread... let's se if I'm good ats fogg... what do you say Jack?

Ps.. here is the card for it::

ats thread

I deny ignorance.

edit on 24-3-2011 by pianopraze because: spelling...



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


so what is actually being done to achieve the results of the CFR's 2008 workshop?

The briefing notes - www.cfr.org... - seem to be the usual "what if" discussion that hasn't been a secret ever....and the workshop is splattered all over the 'net - it doesnt really sem to fit in as a secret agenda to do somethign we don't know about
edit on 24-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: "in reply to" was wrong



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Hmmm... funny thing about the CFR. they control our government.

Every single President appoints them to almost all positions they can appoint. Obama was surrounded by them even before he won the Presidency.

Almost every single policy paper the CFR produce ends up as laws, executive orders etc.

Funny thing that...



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 

Boy did you twist that around. The CFR workshop was to examine ways to prevent unilateral application of geoengineering.



focus on the question of strategies for constraining and shapin geoengineering. We will explore formal, legal strategies as well as informal efforts to create norms that could govern testing and deployment of geoengineering systems and their possible undesirable consequences. We will probe whether it is possible to limit the use of geoengineering to circumstances of collective action by the international community in the face of true global emergencies and what might happen when there are disputes over when the emergency “trigger” should be pulled.
They were talking about ways to control such measures and how to determine when and if they should be taken.

About the specific proposal:

There are a variety of strategies, such as injecting light-reflecting particles into the stratosphere, that might be used to modify the Earth’s atmosphere-ocean system in an attempt to slow or reverse global warming. All of these "geoengineering" strategies involve great uncertainty and carry significant risks. They may not work as expected, imposing large unintended consequences on the climate system. While offsetting warming, most strategies are likely to leave other impacts unchecked, such as acidification of the ocean, the destruction of coral reefs, and changes in composition of terrestrial ecosystems. Yet, despite uncertain and very negative potential consequences, geoengineering might be needed to avert or reverse some dramatic change in the climate system, such as several meters of sea level rise that could impose disaster on hundreds of millions of people.
www.cfr.org...

It is, in part, this sort of discussion which led to the UN resolution regarding geoengineering. BTW, this was discussed here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 3/24/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yep, there they have a weekend long workshop on how to go about geoengineering...

... but they have NO intention for implimenting it???

Yep, those globalist really do have our best interests at heart


I know I'm the one twisting things here



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Oh, my, oh my.....based on reading that latest screed? It is apparent....


Down into the rabbit hole of "induced" paranoia, have you begun.....

I wrote "induced" on a whim. Because, it is obvious that paranoia breeds paranoia. The obvious(ness) is in the incredibly inane, disjointed and (normally, to rational people) unrelated "links" and allusions subscribed.....in many cases, to completely out-of-context, off-the-cuff snippets culled together to compile the what?

The "paranoid" rabbit hole that is the entry to the Land of "confirmation bias"....


It is stunningly obvious to so many. (It is one foundaiton of the reason this HOAX thrives, so.....). Then again....well, a diagnosis via "online" is impossible, not valid (nor ethical).....even for those qualified in the area of mental health, and related fields.

JUST in case this is lost ... in all of the rhetoric....any casual reader should be able to pick up on the clues, left on that trail. It is unlikely the subject in the "Reply To" posting will see it this way, however.

Yet....if there is still a shred of rational thinking left, I would suggest a period of deep reflection, and VALID opinion seeking.....WAY outside of the online venues. A "head and sanity check" clearing opportunity....before it's too late.....


edit on 24 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: it's complicated.







 
36
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join