A Challenge to Chemtrail Debunkers

EDIT: double post made by mistake.


Wonderfest 2010: Dare We Try to Engineer Earth's Climate?
fora.tv...

Geoengineering: Global Salvation or Ruin?
fora.tv...

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Geoengineering is not entirely theoretical nor is it somewhat theoretical. The only theoretical part of geoengineering are the lng term results if it's carried out on a large global scale.

But there are no geoengineering proposals that would result in what people call chemtrails.

You're confusing to very different issues. Deliberately IMO.

reply to post by Nobama

I would like to ask your opinion on how the suppose PTB avoid poisoning themselves as well? Also wouldn't we have inside information from pilots by now that felt bad for doing what they did?

Good questions. As for the first, someone from another thread had this suggestion, which actually makes a lot of sense to me:

The chemtrails are 1 part of a binary or even a trinary weapon for depopulation. The other parts are vaccines and/or fluoride or any other thing you may think applies. This is how "they" get away with "spraying" over their own families - "they" won't take the vaccines, or fluoride, or whatever, so "they" won't be affected.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As for the second question:

With people like John Wheeler, other scientists, and recently a nuclear scientist who have been suicided or disappeared, who's to say there haven't been people to want to come clean that have met the same fate as Mr. Wheeler.

Sorry if it seems like im attacking you, I just want the facts as much as you do.

Questioning is not attacking, that is how we arrive at answers. Saying "this is how it is" and suggesting I am ignorant for saying something different, that's attacking (there are probably several of those among this thread at this point, haven't gotten a chance to read all of the responses yet)

reply to post by getreadyalready

Chemtrails as the long, lingering lines in the sky = never.

Those long white/gray, lingering lines are always, 100% of the time, Contrails.

It would be nice if there were actually data to back up this opinion. But sadly there is less evidence to support this notion than there is to support chemtrails. IMO

reply to post by Essan

There is no evidence that any of the trails seen across the sky are anything other than normal contrails. Nor is there any evidence that if any form of spraying for whatever reason were being undertaken then it would looks like contrails. This does not mean such spraying does not happen.

That's true. Nor is there any evidence to prove that ALL of the trails in the sky are JUST normal contrails and yet that is what most of the debunkers I have run across insist, often quite loudly. But we will not find any evidence either way if we are not allowed to question, not allowed to hold up many possibilities as valid-but that (in my opinion) is exactly what the debunkers do-insist that because there is no evidence that we should just accept that all of the lines are contrails and stop questioning. Pointing out that discrepancy is the point of this thread.

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Geoengineering is not entirely theoretical nor is it somewhat theoretical. The only theoretical part of geoengineering are the lng term results if it's carried out on a large global scale.

But there are no geoengineering proposals that would result in what people call chemtrails.

You're confusing to very different issues. Deliberately IMO.

You are incorrect. Who ever planted the notion that the sprays are invisible is completely wrong. Phage tried to suggest this once before and I explained the reasons why he was incorrect. The sprays are not invisible. The proposals for geoengineering actually do include the contrails from jets. Who ever is spreading this rumor that the spray is invisible is wrong and dis informing people.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a0012ec508e8.jpg[/atsimg]

How many gallons of "stuff" has been dumped. And how many samples exists.
I mean, it's falling from the sky. So where are the samples?

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


I agree there is a lot of evidence about chemical experimentation, but there is absolutely zero evidence identifying that expermentation as the high altitude vapor trails in the sky. In fact, just about every bit of evidence that chemtrailers come up with supports the idea that the chemtrails would be low altitude and/or invisible from any distance.

On the other hand, we have literally tons of hard science that supports the formation of condensation trails, the mechanics of it and so forth, and we have known jetways in the sky that we can predict will form the condensation trails.

So, on the one hand we have evidence of chemicals, but also evidence that those chemcials would be dispersed invisibly at low altitudes, and on the other hand we have very detailed, scientific explanations for condensation trails in expected areas of commercial airliner jetways.

Seems like an open and shut case to me. As far as I know, nobody disputes that experimentation with chemicals is ongoing, we only dispute what those big lingering white lines are. Those are condensation trails from commercial jetliners, in established jet ways. 100% of the time, always. Those are not "chemtrails."

reply to post by network dude

In my defense, I did break the rules of that thread and provide evidence for my thoughts.

Sarcastic much? In my defense, I did consider your suggestion, sarcastic or not, as a valid possibility. I suspect that is more than you did for the other items on the list.

Originally posted by coyotepoet

Nor is there any evidence to prove that ALL of the trails in the sky are JUST normal contrails and yet that is what most of the debunkers I have run across insist, often quite loudly.

But when there is NO reason to suppose they are not No-one has yet come up with any proposed type of chemtrail which replicate contrails. That's the point.

There may be chemtrails. But the ony way we'd see them is if they were deliberately designed to look and behave like normal contrails. Do you really believe that to be the case?

reply to post by badw0lf

Keep asking for evidence or asking questions and then stating that unless the answer or evidece agrees with you, that the people providing it are "Small Minded"

Again, isn't that exactly what the debunkers do with their constant cries of "show me the proof?" I have seen many "chemmies" post reports, videos, ideas, etc and every single time they are shot down as being faulty because it doesn't agree with the debunkers point of view. Whole point of this thread is that you can't accuse "chemmies" of something that the "debunkers" are guilty of as well without owning the shortcomings of your own position. Most of the "chemmies" I have interacted with are simply questioning and admit that they don't have all of the answers. That is often more than I can say for many of the "debunkers" I have run across.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
The sprays are not invisible. The proposals for geoengineering actually do include the contrails from jets. Who ever is spreading this rumor that the spray is invisible is wrong and dis informing people.

No, whoever is claiming that stratospheric spraying would manifest itself as tropospheric (manmade) cirrus clouds is wrong and disinforming people. And hasn't done their research.

reply to post by getreadyalready

NO. I am more than willing to admit that chemicals are being sprayed from aircraft. There are plenty of patents, research grants, and documented cases. Yes, chemicals are being sprayed into the atmosphere........BUT all of those chemicals are basically invisible, and usually sprayed at very low altitudes, and very quickly fall to the ground, so that their effects can be measured... Chemicals in the atmosphere = yes. Chemtraisl as invisible, experimental sprays at low altitude = sure. Chemtrails as the long, lingering lines in the sky = never. Those long white/gray, lingering lines are always, 100% of the time, Contrails.

Interesting workaround to my question. One that I actually respect. One that makes your NO answer open minded. Not sure I agree with you, but at least it is a consideration that goes beyond "They are all contrails. Period." That is all I am trying to accomplish with this. Thanks for your input.

people.ucalgary.ca...

Research on global sun block needed now

The idea of deliberately manipulating Earth’s energy balance to offset humandriven climate change strikes many as dangerous hubris. Solar-radiation management (SRM), a proposed form of geoengineering, aims to reduce Earth’s absorption of solar energy by, for example, adding light-scattering aerosols to the upper atmosphere or increasing the lifetime and reflectivity of low-altitude clouds. Many scientists have argued against research on SRM, saying that developing the capability to perform such tasks will reduce the political will to lower greenhouse-gas emissions. We think that the risks of not doing research outweigh the risks of doing it. SRM may be the only human response that can fend off rapid and high-consequence climate impacts. Furthermore, the potential of unilateral deployment of SRM poses environmental and geopolitical risks that can be managed best by developing widely shared knowledge, risk assessment and norms of governanc

Now, if someone were claiming that noctilucent clouds - which do form in the stratosphere and have been inexplicably more common in recent years - were evidence of stratospheric spraying for geoengineering purposes, then maybe they would have an argument worth discussing further?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fda5c663a565.jpg[/atsimg]

Edit: and if anyone does start making such suggestions, remember I said it first!

reply to post by Essan

Now, if someone were claiming that noctilucent clouds - which do form in the stratosphere and have been inexplicably more common in recent years - were evidence of stratospheric spraying for geoengineering purposes, then maybe they would have an argument worth discussing further?

Is that what you are claiming? Because that is a valid possibility as well. Anytime something becomes "inexplicably more common" it should lead us to question why. A good example (albeit off topic) would be the massive increase in Autism in the general population (for clarity I'm not suggesting that that increase has anything to do with "chemtrails".) Any time something is noted as increasing we need to question why-in fact, noticing the increase in lines in the sky above my head was what got me interested in this whole topic to begin with. So...Noctilucent clouds...a valid possibility and one worthy of increased attention. Thanks for your input.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Geoengineering is not entirely theoretical nor is it somewhat theoretical. The only theoretical part of geoengineering are the lng term results if it's carried out on a large global scale.

If you realized just how large the Earth is you would understand why it is theoretical and probably beyond our current technology. A cloud of sunshades in space? A flotilla of buoys spraying ocean water into the air? Just because these things are theoretically possible, it doesn't mean that they are practical.

reply to post by DJW001

If you realized just how large the Earth is you would understand why it is theoretical and probably beyond our current technology

From what I've seen, these trails are only noted in NATO countries. I may be incorrect about that because I haven't done any comprehensive research into where they appear, but if that's the case then we are only talking 28 countries rather than the whole Earth. Of course, that begs the question that if it is geoengineering why just limit it to NATO countries, but that is what we are doing...questioning.

And...to partially answer my own question...from my understanding these have been noted in Australia as well (correct me if I'm wrong on that), which is not a part of NATO (though it is part of the British Commonwealth)

reply to post by coyotepoet


A wonderfully indepth and inciteful thread, but alas, totally wasted here on ATS with it's die-hard collection of shills and 'Official Debunkers of Truth' that are clearly evident to anyone who has attempted to seriously address known conspiracies here.

Any real truths are simply outnumbered in here by those all too eager to misinform and ridicule (the old tactics are the best), I'm sorry to say.
What may have once been a bastion of truth is now a collection of children and shills promoting the agendas of the establishments, along with an ever-dwindling smattering of those of us wishing to "Deny Ignorance" in a world far too full of it to be saved by such 'revelations'.

Regardless of these facts, I Sincerely Thank You for your efforts in trying to enlighten us, but it seems there are far too many willing to believe whatever they hear that will enable them to continue living their privileged lives of vanity and luxurious abuses.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Your bold statements about geengineering being theoretical shows that you have a typical debunker style agenda and will say anything to try and convince others that nothing is happening. You and all your debunker comrades fit into 3 categories.

1 ) You have not investigated this deep enough and are basing your opinions on limited knowledge.

2 ) You do not understand the research papers and you are taking someone else's word about what is being said

3 ) You are purposefully trying to cover up this issue and prevent awareness..

So how does it feel to be a debunker? Here let me clarify this for you..

Now you put debunkers into 3 categories which actually should be four..

4) chemtrailers who do the exact same thing they say debunkers are doing. Reference 1-3 above.