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.

 

This Forum Should Be Closed Down !

page: 24
59
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by PinealGland
I would just like to say that it's highly unfortunate that people think


Often, I will agree...



.
.
.


Originally posted by PinealGland
The global warming myth is dying


So, um, should the thread be shut down?




posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Tecumte
 


Seems others are getting what I'm talking about.

The claims made about this textbook are disingenuous, it's that simple.












God, you guys are hilarious, this is a real text book with as I said a section on engineering the skies with a picture of a plane with the words particle air on the side, putting out a smokey plume that talks about using among other things a richer mixture to modify the atmosphere. Do you have to be spoon fed on everything, go out and do a LITTLE research, you can find this if you just put out a little effort. No wonder you bunktoid types are constantly in the dark and the last to know about anything your not spoon fed, you do nothing but try and put down everything already given to you and bring nothing but obstructionism to the conversation over and over and over. And you wonder why people think your paid military sockpuppets that we know are out on the net.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 



God, you guys are hilarious, this is a real text book with as I said a section on engineering the skies with a picture of a plane with the words particle air on the side, putting out a smokey plume that talks about using among other things a richer mixture to modify the atmosphere.


Rather than have us take your word for it, why don't you post a copy of what you're talking about?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Please don't goad him along in this thread.

We know he's posted plenty of his opinion on the subject within threads that are actually relevant to the threads topic.

I'm more curious whether or not he has an opinion on the forum should being closed, than another long-lasting diatribe on why clouds can give the illusion of chemical trails and how it can still be proven without field tests.

MY opinion, yes, the forum itself is chock full of OPINION with a fact deficit.

That said, I'm happily willing to pitch in for the cause, rent a heli or plane, sample the air, run independent chemical analysis on the control sets, get acknowledgment from the fuel suppliers that they are, in fact, using additives which are DESIGNED to cause chemical dispersal, and post all the findings accompanied by the acknowledgments here on ATS to put this issue to rest once and for all so that my opinion can come to pass as a reality from a basis of REAL fact finding and not youtube conjecture.


Edited to add: See? Now ya went ahead and did it.
edit on 15-5-2011 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by GringoViejo
reply to post by Tecumte
 


well there is a question mark at the end. isn't there?

I will humor you however.

From my source i guess you didn't bother to read:


The Modified Barium Swallow Study is a therapeutic diagnostic test jointly conducted by a speech-language pathologist and a radiologist to examine the oropharyngeal swallowing function, quantify the risk of aspiration and objectively determine which swallowing strategies and diet textures increase the efficiency and safety of the swallow. The test requires a patient to sit upright in a special chair that fits up against the radio graphic table or stand in place for approximately 10 minutes. No specific diet restrictions are necessary to prepare the patient prior to the test although, the speech-language pathologist may make specific recommendations such as NPO (nothing by mouth) or thickened liquids only, prior to the test to protect the patient from aspiration. A fluoroscopic video is recorded to detail the physiology and function of the oral and pharyngeal musculature during the swallow as the events occur very rapidly (i.e.1-2 sec.). The test starts with very small quantities (3ccs.5ccs.and 10ccs.) of thin and thickened liquid barium. If no aspiration is noted, the test systematically progresses to quantities and consistencies that would be typical during a meal. Aspiration is defined as food or liquid material passing through the vocal folds into the trachea. Care is taken to minimize the amount of aspiration. If aspiration is detected, therapeutic strategies are performed to eliminate aspiration and facilitate safe and efficient swallowing. The patient's response to aspirated materials (e.g. no cough, strong effective cough or weak nonproductive cough) is also an important diagnostic indicator that can be measured during this test. Not all patients that aspirate show symptoms at bedside. Patients that silently aspirate (i.e. no spontaneous cough response) can only be accurately diagnosed by completion of the Modified Barium Swallow test. Although not everyone that aspirates develops aspiration pneumonia, patients that are non-ambulatory, immunocompromised or have underlying pulmonary compromise are at highest risk of complications from aspiration.

sandhoffdisease.webs.com...

So, if it's supposedly poisoning us from on high, why aren't people wondering why some are actually made to swallow it for a medical procedure?


edit on 14-5-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)



Bob sorry but this is the lack of common sense and critical thinking I find in so many Bunktoid posts that tells me your crew is only here to be obstructionist and add nothing of value to the conversation. It would take a grade schooler that knew nothing about the subject about 5 min. to answer your rediculous question. Don't you even consider the OBVIOUS, why do you people have to be spoon fed on everything, can't you do even a small amount of homework and apply common sense. Go look up what FORM of barium is used, check out the EXACT compound name, and then apply the logic of short term use compared with bioaccumulation over an extended time. I can go drag out the MSDS but I spent about 5 sec. instead and found there are probably HUNDREDS of places to find info on bariums potential toxicity. Is it really such a big secret. Simply from the first thing I randomly grabbed: (Do we really need to go do a full in depth research to find forms of barium potentially toxic???)


AS I've said many times I don't KNOW how much barium or even what form is used in weather modification (if ANY) or any other military open air applications, you are the one who seemed to want to continue to discuss it, but I do find it's generally reported qualities of producing a 'brilliant white" color to the brilliant white light scattering properties so many of us see in these engineered trails (vs common vapor trails) worth looking at and it's *interesting* (but yes not PROOF) that the 'flu-like' symtoms reported from barium poisoning are so often reported from those who witness the heavy aerosol/particulate operations. (but obviously it could be from a number of other things) Once again I simply say there needs to be much more actual field testing and I hope people will get off of there rears if they feel this stuff is coming down and start really doing the needed SCIENTIFIC testing to confirm just what and how much is being used to modify our weather.


-->
Symptoms of Barium Poisoning to Look For

When barium accumulates in the body, it usually affects the functions of the nervous system. Barium poisoning displays symptoms that are similar to flu, which is why it is not strange to find the condition misdiagnosed as flu. Common symptoms of barium poisoning include:

1. Muscle weakness and tremors
2. Difficulty in breathing
3. Stomach irritations accompanied by diarrhea
4. Anxiety
5. Cardiac irregularities such as abnormally high blood pressure and rapid heartbeat
6. Paralysis



Read more: www.testcountry.org...



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Tecumte
 



God, you guys are hilarious, this is a real text book with as I said a section on engineering the skies with a picture of a plane with the words particle air on the side, putting out a smokey plume that talks about using among other things a richer mixture to modify the atmosphere.


Rather than have us take your word for it, why don't you post a copy of what you're talking about?


Rather than perpetually asking to be spoon fed, why don't you go back about 3 pages and at least make the small effort to see what was already posted by Chad who seems to have located the name of the book and commented on it. I have personally seen the book, my children when they were in the 7th grade brought the science book home and showed me the pcture of the happy little 'particle air' plane spewing out it's smokey looking trail to engineer the atmosphere.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tecumte
the brilliant white light scattering properties so many of us see in these engineered trails (vs common vapor trails)


So, you are claiming there is a measurable optical difference between "engineered trails" and "common vapor trails".

That should be pretty easy to demonstrate. Why don't you start there?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 


sheesh, bub. I go to bed, wake up, and you're STILL spending all this time attacking everyone who disagrees with you.

I mean, why not take some time to present EVIDENCE? IF what you believe is true, and based on researched evidence, it seems that might be a more fruitful avenue to take than bashing everyone who DOES take the time to offer researched evidence.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tecumte


Rather than perpetually asking to be spoon fed, why don't you go back about 3 pages and at least make the small effort to see what was already posted by Chad who seems to have located the name of the book and commented on it. I have personally seen the book, my children when they were in the 7th grade brought the science book home and showed me the pcture of the happy little 'particle air' plane spewing out it's smokey looking trail to engineer the atmosphere.


Ahhh, but chadwick also noted that you took that information completely out of context. Why are you not mentioning that part of the post?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 



Rather than perpetually asking to be spoon fed, why don't you go back about 3 pages and at least make the small effort to see what was already posted by Chad who seems to have located the name of the book and commented on it. I have personally seen the book, my children when they were in the 7th grade brought the science book home and showed me the pcture of the happy little 'particle air' plane spewing out it's smokey looking trail to engineer the atmosphere.


I'm not asking to be spoon fed, I'm asking you to substantiate your claims. Chad has shown that you have taken the quotation out of context. You could prove him wrong by producing a scan of the book in question, otherwise it might appear that you are mindlessly parroting something you read on InfoWars without having done any research of your own.
edit on 15-5-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to amend style.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by alphabetaone
 



That said, I'm happily willing to pitch in for the cause, rent a heli or plane, sample the air, run independent chemical analysis on the control sets, get acknowledgment from the fuel suppliers that they are, in fact, using additives which are DESIGNED to cause chemical dispersal, and post all the findings accompanied by the acknowledgments here on ATS to put this issue to rest once and for all so that my opinion can come to pass as a reality from a basis of REAL fact finding and not youtube conjecture.


EXCELLANT, that is what I have suggested all along, I have advocated nothing more than that what we are seeing, as my best OPINION on the matter is not some big grand *conspiracy* (though I don't rule out some OTHER types of open air testing may be ocurring, as they have been PROVEN to happen in the past) but is simply SCIENCE based weather modification (but still *classified*) that uses more sophisticted methods of seeding FOR clouds and into them than those of 50 years ago. It's disingenuous IMO to try and lump this SCIENCE of weather mod. of which we have so many patents, white papers, and proven attempts in the past to alter weather, into some kind of alien, planet x, etc. etc. mindset. I have no idea one way or the other on THOSE topics, and I don't try and ridicule people who have an interest in them, some day it may be shown those topics are valid as well, I just haven't spent the time to research them so I leave it OPEN, but I am fully convinced weather mod is happening it is only a queston of HOW MUCH and to what degree and as to what materials and methods are being used, rather than IF it is happening. IMO there is enough evidence (of which bunktoids keep ignoring and continue to play dumb and ask for more over and over and over) that SUGGEST this science is now ocurring on a wide scale and with much more sophisticated methods than decades ago, in my humble OPINION.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tecumte
IMO there is enough evidence (of which bunktoids keep ignoring and continue to play dumb and ask for more over and over and over) that SUGGEST this science is now ocurring on a wide scale and with much more sophisticated methods than decades ago, in my humble OPINION.



But that's the thing, friend. If it's your 'opinion', it isnt evidence. What EVIDENCE doe you bae your opinions on, and why do you reject any critique of whatever flimsy evidence you present?

Because, in regard to SCIENCE, peer-reviewed aggressive debunking is VERY MUCH part of the scientific process. Seeking out flimsy evidence to support your opinion is NOT science.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by Tecumte


Rather than perpetually asking to be spoon fed, why don't you go back about 3 pages and at least make the small effort to see what was already posted by Chad who seems to have located the name of the book and commented on it. I have personally seen the book, my children when they were in the 7th grade brought the science book home and showed me the pcture of the happy little 'particle air' plane spewing out it's smokey looking trail to engineer the atmosphere.


Ahhh, but chadwick also noted that you took that information completely out of context. Why are you not mentioning that part of the post?


Chad offered no proof to support his conspiracy theory.

Neither do you.

For people that ask for proof of everything. why be so hypocritical.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tecumte

EXCELLANT, that is what I have suggested all along, I have advocated nothing more than that what we are seeing, as my best OPINION on the matter is not some big grand *conspiracy* (though I don't rule out some OTHER types of open air testing may be ocurring, as they have been PROVEN to happen in the past) but is simply SCIENCE based weather modification (but still *classified*) that uses more sophisticted methods of seeding FOR clouds and into them than those of 50 years ago. It's disingenuous IMO to try and lump this SCIENCE of weather mod. of which we have so many patents, white papers, and proven attempts in the past to alter weather, into some kind of alien, planet x, etc. etc. mindset. I have no idea one way or the other on THOSE topics, and I don't try and ridicule people who have an interest in them, some day it may be shown those topics are valid as well, I just haven't spent the time to research them so I leave it OPEN, but I am fully convinced weather mod is happening it is only a queston of HOW MUCH and to what degree and as to what materials and methods are being used, rather than IF it is happening. IMO there is enough evidence (of which bunktoids keep ignoring and continue to play dumb and ask for more over and over and over) that SUGGEST this science is now ocurring on a wide scale and with much more sophisticated methods than decades ago, in my humble OPINION.



Let me clue you in to precisely the type of person I am. (I'm using this as a disclaimer to anything at all I may comment on).

I am a very literal person, I take linguistics at their core meanings and interpret them precisely. This does not mean I have an inability to read things in context, it simply means that when it comes to making a decision, I go to literal mode.

Now, in this case I will say you have me somewhat confused...because of what I've just said, I thought we talking about chemtrails and a grand design to disperse chemicals (over the population) for whatever the designed purposes nefarious schemes are. I hadn't thought that weather modification (or testing) was in the equation. Even at the highest levels, weather TESTING and attempts at modification via seeding has never been at issue as far as I know as, it was freely admitted and, in fact, encouraged. So, no secret there. I wouldn't go out of my way to PROVE weather modification because of that.

However, if we are talking about Chemical dispersal over a wide portion of the US (which is what I thought chemtrails were alluding to), now THAT I would absolutely be on-board for going the distance with...

So, are we talking about weather modification? Or are we talking about Chemical dispersal? Orrrrrrrr

Are we assuming the 2 topics are actually one in the same as the chemical dispersal is FOR weather modification and thus DOES get dispersed upon the population over a wide area?

See my confusion?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 



...7th grade brought the science book home and showed me the pcture of the happy little 'particle air' plane spewing out it's smokey looking trail to engineer the atmosphere.


You still are missing the point, about that (alleged) "textbook"!!

It appears to have been slipped in to that school's curriculum, and you should COMPLAIN to the School Board about it! It is apparently written by ignorant fools with a "chemmie" agenda. Likely, they are stirring up the ignorant "chem"-trail hysteria, either because they are "chemmies" themselves, or just shilling for the hoax business.

It is similar to the news about other school textbooks recently, with FALSE and INCORRECT information in them....remember the one about how Black soldiers were integrated into the Civil War Army??? In Virgina, of all places?!? That is " revisionist history" attempt in action (or, more ignorance). This is "revisionist science"....agenda-driven claptrap.

Oh, and the ignorant claims are evident, to people who understand the technology. A jet turbine engine is NOT the same as your car's piston engine. Running "rich" is NOT possible in a high-bypass turbine engine. A piston internal-combustion engine uses an adjustable fuel-air mixture, hence it can run "rich" by increasing the ratio of fuel.

A modern jet turbine engine, when you increase the amount of fuel, will just MAKE MORE POWER! And, get hotter in the process. It will find its own air, from the surrounding atmosphere, in order to burn the fuel, to produce the power. This is why there's a limit to the amounts of fuel you can introduce to a jet engine....the temperatures. More and more fuel, and it gets too hot, for the limitations of the materials it is built from.

The "smoky" jet engines of the past are gone....they were less efficient, and had far more unburned soot and hydrocarbons in their emissions, because of their designs. (Another short-lived power boosting technique was water-injection...this cooled down the exhaust, and allowed more fuel in, but resulted in more unburned fuel, because of the water's effect. Injection could only last for as long as your tank of water lasted, tho....a few minutes, used for takeoff thrust improvement.).

So, you see....the claims in that "textbook" are totally fallacious....but, it gets those uneducated and unaware of the actual science and technology all "excited" about nothing. SO, it worked......










edit on Sun 15 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by Tecumte
IMO there is enough evidence (of which bunktoids keep ignoring and continue to play dumb and ask for more over and over and over) that SUGGEST this science is now ocurring on a wide scale and with much more sophisticated methods than decades ago, in my humble OPINION.



But that's the thing, friend. If it's your 'opinion', it isnt evidence. What EVIDENCE doe you bae your opinions on, and why do you reject any critique of whatever flimsy evidence you present?

Because, in regard to SCIENCE, peer-reviewed aggressive debunking is VERY MUCH part of the scientific process. Seeking out flimsy evidence to support your opinion is NOT science.


Plenty of EVIDENCE has been sited over and over and over and every time it is bunktoids do the Sgt. Schulze impersonation and say 'where's the evidence'.LOL It's really a question of what constitutes 'evidence' vs what one believes is 'proof'. I fully admit what we are looking at is CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence, I have already said I think the only smoking gun 'proof' will have to be much more active environmental sampling and maybe only multiple samples obtained at altitude will ever be 100% PROOF. Until then I have fully admitted it is my best hypothesis that we are simply seeing the many weather modification methods decribed in patents and white papers put into application. Nothing really so far fetched about that, no need to ridicule or downplay or marginalize those who feel this science is happening though for now kept out of the public domain as far as being implemented.

How about this? If your group of bunk buddies wants to be truly helpful lets' start out with what you would actually accept as 100% proof and what methods you would use to obtain it. How about a usefull list rather than simply being obstructionist on every post.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tecumte


Chad offered no proof to support his conspiracy theory..


Yes, he did. You even commented on it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

See how easy that was?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Originally posted by Tecumte

EXCELLANT, that is what I have suggested all along, I have advocated nothing more than that what we are seeing, as my best OPINION on the matter is not some big grand *conspiracy* (though I don't rule out some OTHER types of open air testing may be ocurring, as they have been PROVEN to happen in the past) but is simply SCIENCE based weather modification (but still *classified*) that uses more sophisticted methods of seeding FOR clouds and into them than those of 50 years ago. It's disingenuous IMO to try and lump this SCIENCE of weather mod. of which we have so many patents, white papers, and proven attempts in the past to alter weather, into some kind of alien, planet x, etc. etc. mindset. I have no idea one way or the other on THOSE topics, and I don't try and ridicule people who have an interest in them, some day it may be shown those topics are valid as well, I just haven't spent the time to research them so I leave it OPEN, but I am fully convinced weather mod is happening it is only a queston of HOW MUCH and to what degree and as to what materials and methods are being used, rather than IF it is happening. IMO there is enough evidence (of which bunktoids keep ignoring and continue to play dumb and ask for more over and over and over) that SUGGEST this science is now ocurring on a wide scale and with much more sophisticated methods than decades ago, in my humble OPINION.



Let me clue you in to precisely the type of person I am. (I'm using this as a disclaimer to anything at all I may comment on).

I am a very literal person, I take linguistics at their core meanings and interpret them precisely. This does not mean I have an inability to read things in context, it simply means that when it comes to making a decision, I go to literal mode.

Now, in this case I will say you have me somewhat confused...because of what I've just said, I thought we talking about chemtrails and a grand design to disperse chemicals (over the population) for whatever the designed purposes nefarious schemes are. I hadn't thought that weather modification (or testing) was in the equation. Even at the highest levels, weather TESTING and attempts at modification via seeding has never been at issue as far as I know as, it was freely admitted and, in fact, encouraged. So, no secret there. I wouldn't go out of my way to PROVE weather modification because of that.

However, if we are talking about Chemical dispersal over a wide portion of the US (which is what I thought chemtrails were alluding to), now THAT I would absolutely be on-board for going the distance with...

So, are we talking about weather modification? Or are we talking about Chemical dispersal? Orrrrrrrr

Are we assuming the 2 topics are actually one in the same as the chemical dispersal is FOR weather modification and thus DOES get dispersed upon the population over a wide area?

See my confusion?


I do see your confusion and I think it comes from trying to SEPERATE weather modification from chemical/particulate/aerosol dispersion rather than to assume as you do in your last sentence that SOME (most?) of what we are witnessing is that the two topics go hand in hand. What many are calling 'chemtrailing' and seeing in reality is IMO just seeing the atmosphere modified to control and manipulate the weather. Having said that though, we do REASONABLY know that other open air military tests have been performed over populations for decades (i.e. Clouds of secrecy just one source) using chemicals and pathogens so I think it would be reasonable to not automatically elimated those things. And too even weather mod. depending on just what methods it employs MAY be using materials that MAY have profound negative environmental effects. Once again the best logical next step is to start doing EXTENSIVE sampling and see what turns up.

It appears sampling results such as on Carnicom's site does appear to show potentially toxic materials being found but obviously it is easy for people to write those off as coming from other sources and hard to 'prove'. That may well be true, but it could also be that maybe what we are witnessing is just as simple as that the methods employed for weather mod. etc. are using the very materials and techniques described in the many patents dealing with the subject. Much more testing needs to be done and I hope people that are concerned will start doing that. At this point I haven't felt the need to actually go out and collect air and rain samples, I haven't personally been able to observe these weather mod. programs (yes IMO) are directly affecting my health. At some point though I may go this route if it appears there is an immediate need, and as my life's work (20 plus years) is in environmental testing I have both the means and ability to perform such tests. For now I'll continue to watch, keep an open mind and eye on things, continue to learn and I would suggest perhaps you might consider that also. In the mean time though my hypothesis regarding weather mod. stll stands and I still at this point believe it is the MOST likely explanation (in part) for 'chemtrailing'.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by Tecumte


Chad offered no proof to support his conspiracy theory..


Yes, he did. You even commented on it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

See how easy that was?


No he didn't.That's not proof. That's not even 'evidence'. Where's the evidence? Don't you have any? Can't you explain it and provide proof for your conspiracy theory? C'mon I'm waiting.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tecumte
I fully admit what we are looking at is CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence


Much of what is offered does not even raise to the level of circumstantial evidence, it's not evidence at all, it's more like mistakes.

The reason people keep asking for evidence is not because they are ignoring what has been presented - it's because they have already examined what has been presented, and explained, usually in some detail, what's wrong with it.

The ONLY evidence that supports the chemtrail theory is that several people don't remember there being as many persistent contrails (relative to the increase in air traffic). But then you've also got people who DO remember regular persistent contrails, and then you've got people who don't remember ANY persistent contrails.

Memory is a funny thing. People tend to think their memory is a lot better than it actually is. Better to go with actual historical photos and written records if you want real evidence. Those show that nothing has really changed.

Of course it's entirely possible there's some secret spraying operation being conducted. But if there is then they are doing an excellent job of coving it up, as they appear to be operating without a trace of evidence.




top topics



 
59
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join