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" advocates and believers, which of you will state your hypothesis?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Truther9111776

if done with some thing
why persist in doing it

is this not
the definition of insanity



Im addressing the OP, im not persisting with the argument....

Its your choice to use some logic, but chemtrailers rarely show any logical evidence to back up their claims, other than personal observations and vague, misinterpreted news video and government patents. Precisely the reason why I dont bother with it anymore. I monitor the atmosphere for a living and know exactly what happens up there, its my job to actually know that....but hey, that doesnt count towards anything on ATS




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bentenheimer
Here is a document about geo-engineering from the Council on Foreign Relations website:

www.cfr.org...

I think that this document, and its source, lend credence to the geo-engineering hypothesis. Although this hypothesis obviously isn't my own, it seems a logical one (given all of the recent global-warming concerns).

How do you like them apples, "scholar"?


That document is a result of concern that someone MAY decide to do geo-engineering, AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE and there will not be any regulation to control it - and no come-back to stop it if it is thought to be too risky.

therefore it PROPOSES to regulate the "industry" before it ever happens.

So no it does absolutely nothing whatsoever to "lend credence to the geo-engineering hypothesis", because it is all about something that ISN'T HAPPENING YET.

It is just so typical of chemmies that

1/ you plead that you won't actually own up to agreeing with the geo-engineering hypothesis (or "HOAX" as we like to call it); and

2/ you use something to "lend credence" to it that does nothing of the sort.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by dadgad
reply to post by weedwhacker
 





reply to post by shenanigans Film "What in the World..." long ago shown to be a pile of bunk. It is a clever scam....by those who either innocently "believe" in the "chem"-trail hoax, or know it's a sham, and just promote the silliness for ulterior motives......


Is that a fact? I think you are a little naive here.


Yes it is a fact - contrailscience.com...



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by dplum517
 


It's been easily debunked - contrailscience.com...




sorry buddy...... contrailscience hasn't debunked anything...

You are just victim to a simple propaganda tool..... so sad


Which part of it is wrong?

You have claimed several times that he site is disinfo, wrong, lies, paid propaganda and/or other words to that effect, but you have never once identified anything on it that is actually incorrect.

Why can't you point to what is wrong? Could it be that you don't actually know that anything on it is wrong?

What is you evidence that the site is "paid propaganda"? Paid by who?

Why do you call science propaganda? Why do you have an anti-science agenda?

I think I'll bump the Contrail Science - the site believers love to hate so we can see just how hollow your "condemnation" of the site is......you couldn't identify anything wrong on it then, and it seems you still can't.
edit on 10-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Ummm yes I did .... they are calling blatant Chemtrails ...contrails....
edit on 10-5-2011 by dplum517 because: typo



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Oh man, this is fun! Thanks for replying to my post. Ok, I was being a bit of a lazy ass when I posted my comment. A url cut and paste seemed sufficient at the time; and the "apples" comment was meant to mirror the tone of your original post. But yeah, I didn't satisfy the requirements of what you are asking. I've gotta run out the door to work, but I will be sure to give you a proper hypothesis when I get home.

Cheers



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
HAHA... the lucidity of your statements never cease to amaze me WW.
And NO it has not been "shown to be a pile of bunk" .... I love how you make this crap up

Really???? it's a "clever scam" are you serious man? These people are genuine about it and are still finding answers unlike you. ..... cause you know.... people just want to go around wasting alot of time and resources on trying to inform people of the truth .... ya that's "silliness"


If you cared to know the truth, you could look up the average aluminum content of the soil, it is easy to Google, rather than persist in disinformation, ignorance, and insults.

You would realize that assuming an aircraft could be the only possible source of aluminum is irrational and insupportable.

You would realize that there are no ill effects from the subject "concentrations" claimed (again assuming that a proper analysis was done in the first place).

You would realize that you have NO IDEA what the motives of the producers and participants really are, and that you can't believe everything you are told, and should look into facts and assertions for yourself. (But that would take motivation and effort.)

You would realize that some people do benefit from telling people what they want to hear/fear.

All of this information is readily available online to anyone who desires NOT to look foolish or be lied to, or just cared to learn for themselves.

Of course, no one expects that from you and the other "chemtrail" believers.

jw



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 



they are calling blatant Chemtrails ...contrails..


But you will not even define "blatant Chemtrails;" so how would you know the difference?

What is your definition of "blatant Chemtrails?"

jw



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I believe there is some serious tom foolery going on with sky treaments or that something is being hidden from some others eyes.

My 1 cent



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
You ever notice questions like the one the OP has asked always get the politicians answer ?? WHO - WHAT - WHERE - WHY ??? No one has posted ANYTHING that backs this stupid claim up. Same thing with HAARP. They are the kind of illogical ramblings that a paranoid Schizophrenic would come out with. So instead of going round calling the general populace "sheeple" and then posting links to YouTube and other sites as your responses, why doesn't someone answer the question ?? No one actually targeted... just spray everyone. RIDICULOUS.

Who's doing it ?
Why ?
What aircraft ?
What agent ?
Where ?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truther9111776
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 

you assume
while hoping others trust
if done with some thing
why persist in doing it
is this not
the definition of insanity


no

it is persistence
in the belief

that men would rather

be wise
than ignorant.

But, Nephophobia is!



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
reply to post by jdub297
 

I believe there is some serious tom foolery going on with sky treaments


How did you arrive at this "belief?"

Can you define "serious tomfoolery?" How is it different from "tomfoolery?" Is there a "frivolous tomfoolery?"

What is a "sky treatment?" Is it to cure something, or cause something?


or that something is being hidden from some others eyes.


What is being hidden? How do you hide it?

Why only "some other's?" Who is it not hidden from? Why is there a difference?


My 1 cent


Is only half as valuable as "my 2 cents?"

jw



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bentenheimer
reply to post by jdub297
 


Oh man, this is fun! Thanks for replying to my post. Ok, I was being a bit of a lazy ass when I posted my comment. A url cut and paste seemed sufficient at the time; and the "apples" comment was meant to mirror the tone of your original post. But yeah, I didn't satisfy the requirements of what you are asking. I've gotta run out the door to work, but I will be sure to give you a proper hypothesis when I get home.

Cheers


Cheers back! Don't work too hard. Do you want to go over the entire doc, or just parts, or just talk in general about it?

You weren't being lazy; everyone takes shortcuts.

As for the tone of my post, it is dead serious. I deal with professionals of every caliber and fashion. Some, I rely on; others, I have to dissect their opinions and conclusions.

Too much of the "chemtrail" business is based upon opinions and conclusions that do not bear up to scrutiny. I've dealt with "junk science" in too many venues and too often to just accept supposedly "scientific" analyses on faith, and do my best to show others just why they are not entitled to credence.

I'll check back later as well. Got to fire-up the pit.

jw
edit on 10-5-2011 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by 13star
 


No one has posted ANYTHING that backs this stupid claim up


They won't because they can't; and they know it.

I intend to pose that little batch to each one directly, even if I already have.
Surprisingly, I can name a few who seem to have come to realize that the answers disprove their assumptions.

It's always hard to have your faith challenged; and that's what the "chemtrail" business depends upon: faith in charlatans.

People make a great living just by relying on that principle alone.
jw



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by shenanigans
 


may I just say that regardless of what you believe about chemtrails, your avitar is awesome. I loved that video clip and it makes me smile every time I see it.

For the record, If you study meteorology a bit, it does a very good job at explaining how persistent contrails form. Which is a large portion of the debate with "chemtrails"



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Ummm yes I did .... they are calling blatant Chemtrails ...contrails....


so it should be real simple to point out which "blatant chemtrails" are actually chemtrails - and why, and how you identify them, and prove the site wrong.

You've said this before, and I've made the point before that it should be a simple matter to show the error.


But you have never done so - why not??

so here is another chance - show us these "blatant chemtrails" - show us how you can tell they are chemtrails and not contrails - prove the chemtrail hoax is actually true - you'll be a hero!!



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


One day my friend, one day.

Patience.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


Why take any time at all?

These are "blatant", and you've said that teh site has "blatant lies" on it on 14 April this year - www.abovetopsecret.com...

So you've known about it for almost a month - at LEAST - and you haven't bothered telling us??

Why are you helping with the cover up??



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

no

it is persistence
in the belief

that men would rather

be wise
than ignorant.

But, Nephophobia is!


How is it persistence in the belief? I analyse the upper air for a living. There's over 70 years of science to back it up. Persistent contrails have been around since the bombing runs in World War 2, there is actual video evidence to back that up. As of yet, you havent even provided any indication that you have any knowledge about basic upper air meteorology, so I fail to see how you can disprove the science behind persistent contrails.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
can i just ask why would they be spraying these chem trails in secret as you say. When they released a document telling us its something they may do in the future? you realize if this was a big conspiracy it would most likely be all over the MSN who would be telling the "sheeple" how great this technology is and how its going to combat global warming. right?




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join