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 and their agenda

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by binkbonk
My point? My point is that you sure have a lot of time to spend on the internet, saving us from ourselves by "debunking" our "memories". I think you are a shill. Prove you're not.


Assume I am, it makes no difference.

Then show where I'm wrong. I'll post an admission and correction.
Prove that there are none of the previously mentioned geoengineering particulates in those "contrails". Let's see some proof of your claims. Otherwise stop claiming you know the facts.




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 

I said "I think" he's a paid shill. That is my opinion. I made no claim, it just seems to me that he is closed minded to the possibilities of geoengineering chemtrails even though proof has been provided of many government programs publicly proposing the implementation of such spraying programs. He is trying to convince people to listen to him and ignore a whole portion of the facts. Those are the actions of a shill, and that is why he seems like one to me.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by binkbonk
Prove that there are none of the previously mentioned geoengineering particulates in those "contrails". Let's see some proof of your claims. Otherwise stop claiming you know the facts.


What I'm claiming is that you have no evidence to back your claims. That's all.

The proof of my claims is your inability to present evidence.
edit on 16-5-2011 by Uncinus because: fixed quoting



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by James1982
 

I said "I think" he's a paid shill. That is my opinion. I made no claim, it just seems to me that he is closed minded to the possibilities of geoengineering chemtrails even though proof has been provided of many government programs publicly proposing the implementation of such spraying programs. He is trying to convince people to listen to him and ignore a whole portion of the facts. Those are the actions of a shill, and that is why he seems like one to me.


Yes, could roughly say "proof been provided of many government programs publicly proposing the implementation of such spraying programs", depending on how you parse things. But let's accept that for now.

BUT: No proposal of implementation has reached the legislative stage. And no evidence exists that such a program is physically being implemented.

So, why do you think otherwise? On what basis?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 
You have presented no evidence. Have you physically sampled the chemtrails in the sky? Until you can prove that none of the geoengineering particulates that the government programs speak of are not in the chemtrails, then you have provided no proof.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 
Although listening to you distort the truth and twist the conversation into a vortex similar to some familiar toilet bowl action is fascinating, I'm getting bored.
Bye, I'm going to the beach.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by Uncinus
 
You have presented no evidence. Have you physically sampled the chemtrails in the sky? Until you can prove that none of the geoengineering particulates that the government programs speak of are not in the chemtrails, then you have provided no proof.


I'm not trying to prove that chemtrails don't exist. That would be impossible.

What I'm trying to demonstrate is that there is no evidence that they DO exist. I think that is quite handily proven by the lack of evidence.

Let's say we were discussing thaylacines. Obviously I can't prove that it does not exist. But I can quite reasonably make the claim that there is zero evidence that it DOES exist. There has been zero physical evidence of their existence since 1936. Obviously it could exist, just there's no evidence.

That's all I'm saying about chemtrails. There's as much evidence for chemtrails as there is for thylacines.

edit on 16-5-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-5-2011 by Uncinus because: spelin



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   


That's all I'm saying above chemtrails. There's as much evidence for chemtrails as there is for thylacines.


You are wasting your time. It doesn't matter that the technology has been proposed. It doesn't matter at all because these cats have closed their minds, every single particle in the air was put there, by someone, to kill them, case closed, no questions please.

It's amazing. Want to see what's wrong with alternative media and ATS in general? The dingbat repeatedly DEMANDING people prove a negative.

The person making the claim has to provide proof. We have decades of science to explain contrails. As of this writing, ZERO documentation on active "chemtrailing". Not 1 photo of a plane modified for clandestine spraying. Not 1 video of a plane spraying. Not 1 image of a plane at an airport being loaded with deadly chemtrails. Nothing.

summary?

Ample evidence for contrails
Zero evidence for chemtrails.

Again, though this will be ignored, because that is how actual disinformation works, I'm not saying it impossible, i'm saying right now NO evidence has been presented.

But see, when dingbat decides to respond he'll post a badly worded, poorly punctuated, paragraph about how I'm a disinfo agent paid to spread this information. HAH, if I could get paid for talking basic high school physics and science, sign me the heck up.

We don't need to provide any proof they aren't real, because until YOU, the ones making the claims, provide ANYTHING that points towards them being real, they aren't. They could indeed be real, but we'll never get answers if your stance is "They are real you are stoopid for not believing me and my youtube video" we're gonna get no where. This whole close minded and disinfo agent CRAP goes both ways. If you look at every damn trail in the sky and assume it's deadly chemicals to kill you, first, I feel really sorry for you and anyone who cares about you, second, you NEED ME to point out the obvious contrails, because without ME, you'll never actually prove a damn thing. All you've done is create a religion out of this subject.

And to see people demanding that WE present proof against chemtrails, I'm pretty sure we already have, all you need to do is go to the wikipedia article on "contrails" and ACTUALLY READ IT. Not the first line that some SOB posts here, the ENTIRE ARTICLE, where it clearly explains that contrails can and do last for hours or all day, can and do spread out and linger like cloud cover. Almost everything attributed to a "chemtrail" that makes it different from a contrail, is in fact a normal contrail condition.

No samples have been taken independantly
No images provided
Any pictures of "chemtrails" when show to someone who doesn't have their head up Alex Jones's butt, see's normal contrails. I feel bad for you all, I fell for this but as is my style, I researched deciding not to "just believe" what someone on an alternative site said, and looky, everything they said makes a chemtrail not a contrail is in fact normal contrail behavior.

Deny ignorance. Yeah, well, for that we'd have to post ban half of the people here I think. It's on thing to believe, it's another to demand we prove you wrong, that's silly and that's not how the real world works. If you expect respect, you'd best bring some to the table. Without us "debunkers" (the real ones, not the ones who just dismiss everything out of hand) you are going in circles slapping each other on the back, feeling special because you are "awake" and "in the know" and are "better" and the "sheeple"

don't you see, you've been pulled into a cult.


edit on 16-5-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 




It is widely believed that you can’t prove a negative. Some people even think that it is a law of logic—you can’t prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq and Bigfoot don’t exist. This widespread belief is flatly, 100% wrong. In this little essay, I show precisely how one can prove a negative, to the same extent that one can prove anything at all.

You can prove a negative...Well, you can't.

So now that we've gotten that out of the way, I ask again. Prove that there are no geoengineering particulates in the chemtrails that everyone can see.

...Oh, by the way, you misspelled "one" and you use too many commas.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by stavis
 


There is no such thing as chemtrails ............ and the reasons are
blatantly obvious.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by rigel4
reply to post by stavis
 


There is no such thing as chemtrails ............ and the reasons are
blatantly obvious.



Ok, what is your evidence for your claim? what is it that the plan spray? it is obvious at chemtrails are and you say no. fine, good for you but if you want to contribute something constructive and get this perpetual discussion foreward, I would be very grateful if you could detect a single proof of your claim. But to leave a comment on a series like this: there are no chemtrails the reasons are
blatantly obvious. to reason that a is like five year old having an argument with the wall.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Well since you asked..............

No evidence in picture or text of planes spraying

No evidence of planes on the ground, rigged for spraying

No evidence of the pilots who pilot the alleged planes.

Evidence of common sense, (Oh Yes there is) of contrails
(water vapour) at high altitude.

No reasonable reason for spraying anything over our countries.

No Increase in contrails anywhere i have been.

If the alleged chemtrails (lol) were for our good, then at such an altitude and
all over the world we would be benefiting our enemies too.

If alleged chemtrails were other than for our good, then where are the mass symptoms
Where are the mass deaths or anything out of the ordinary.

As you know it is not up to unbelievers to prove our case it us up to YOU to prove your case
to us.

So now i have gave a brief over view of why i Think chemtrails are Imaginary
it is now your turn to present the evidence for your belief.

Rigel4



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by rigel4
 
If "they're for our own good", then why are they spraying these chemtrails covertly?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by rigel4
 


Sorry that aint gonna change nothing, and where is your evidence of your claim? you see what you think is not the point if you dont have the fact to back it up. Why dont you and the rest debunkers create a new site where you can debunk everything all the time? Stewen Hawkings is someone to debunk at this moment. I bet he cant prove his claim about heaven? or could he? he must be mental to say a thing like that
and pretty stupid 2, dont you think?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by binkbonk
 


Who says "they" are spraying anything at all. never mind covertly.

Go back and read my post again, especially the part that says that it's the Believers turn to provide evidence of
chemtrails.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by stavis
 


I don't debunk everything...But you claim i have no evidence..sorry pardner
your the one with no evidence, just a wild imagination.

Give me one shred of evidence of the existence of chemtrails......just one.

I know, i know, you can't ,coz there is none, lol.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by rigel4
reply to post by binkbonk
 


Who says "they" are spraying anything at all. never mind covertly.

Go back and read my post again, especially the part that says that it's the Believers turn to provide evidence of
chemtrails.
No, you need to show proof that the contrails of yesteryear are exactly the same as the chemtrails of today. That is the claim that your "team" is making. Ok, go, prove it.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by binkbonk

Originally posted by rigel4
reply to post by binkbonk
 


Who says "they" are spraying anything at all. never mind covertly.

Go back and read my post again, especially the part that says that it's the Believers turn to provide evidence of
chemtrails.
No, you need to show proof that the contrails of yesteryear are exactly the same as the chemtrails of today. That is the claim that your "team" is making. Ok, go, prove it.


Prove that we need to prove it.

Let's break this down.

A claims that X exists
B points out that there's no evidence that X exists
A points out there there's no evidence that X doesn't exist

And that's all you need.

if A accepts that there's no evidence that X exists, then why is A demanding that B provide proof that it doesn't exist.

You want someone to provide proof of the non-existence of something for which there is no evidence. Why?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by binkbonk
 

So the believer team has no evidence, they simply look to the sky's and see some contrails,
look they say, I'm feeling paranoid and suspicious today, these contrails look different today,they must be
a black op covert operation against mankind. (loling like mad here).
To break it down somewhat, what makes you think they are different from contrails????

It's a joke except you lot have forgot the punchline.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by rigel4
 


Source: CyprusMail. THE GREENS yesterday called for government funding to investigate suspected contamination caused by alleged chemtrails in Cypriot skies. The party have also launched on their website an online petition calling for a proper investigation into the chemtrail phenomenon (www.greenpartycy.com/el/our-news/2009-10-29-12-19-08/campaign-against-ch…).

“We demand the government keep its promise and examine the possible consequences to the health of residents and the environment from chemtrails created by aircraft taking off from the British Bases in combination with the experimental operation of the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme (HAARP) within the Akrotiri British Bases and in Cyprus airspace in general,” party head Ioanna Panayiotou said.

The chemtrail theory holds that some trails left by aircraft are actually chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for a purpose undisclosed to the general public in clandestine programmes directed by government officials. The existence of chemtrails has been repeatedly denied by government agencies and scientists around the world, who say the trails are normal contrails, or condensation trails made by the exhaust of aircraft engines.

The Greens said the government made a commitment to the House Environment Committee in March 2009 to conduct an in-depth study of these accusations. A bi-ministerial technical committee was subsequently formed for this purpose.

The technical committee, the Greens added, “dissolved mysteriously” after only a few sessions.

“We demand that the government adopts our proposal to finance an independent study that will take samples and chemically analyse the substances included in these chemical trails,” said Panayiotou.

Campaign Against Chemtrails’ Yiannos Alexandrou said observations of high-altitude aircraft in Cypriot skies leaving the characteristic trails were on the rise.

Research director at Greece’s National Centre of Scientific Research, chemist Nicolaos Katsaros said soil samples taken in Greece showed traces of aluminium and barium – substances that are neurotoxic to humans and poison the food chain.

“They are the new Weapons of Mass Destruction,” he said.

Katsaros ascribes to the theory – one of a multitude – that chemtrails are being used for covert climate control. According to this theory, chemtrails contain metal particles which reflect sunlight away from earth to combat global warming.

In October last year, Cyprus was represented at the Nagoya conference in Japan, where the 193-member UN Convention on Biological Diversity passed a resolution calling for a moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments. The resolution called for a halt to any private or public experimentation intended to manipulate the planetary thermostat.

link 2 source

also:




FAA confirms chemtrail program



 

COLOR="#000099">FAA OFFICIAL CONFIRMS AIR FORCE IS
CONDUCTING WEATHER MODIFICATION OVER U.S. AND CANADA
COLOR="#990000" SIZE="-1">April 4, 2001 lifeboat
news service ©2001 William Thomas and S.T. Brendt
SIZE="-1">www3.bc.sympatico.ca...

SIZE="-1">PORTLAND, Maine...A senior air traffic control
manager responsible for commercial aircraft over the northeastern
United States has confirmed in a second exclusive interview with
radio reporter S.T. Brendt that large formations of U.S. Air Force
tanker aircraft are conducting ongoing operations over the USA
and Canada.

SIZE="-1">The sky-obscuring chemicals laid down in criss-cross
patterns by the big jets have been observed by thousands of eyewitnesses
across North America over the past two years. When asked the purpose
of these missions, the FAA official said he was told "weather
modification" after a "higher civil authority"
ordered him to divert incoming trans-Atlantic airliners around
military formations flying over 37,000 feet on March 12, 20 and
21, 2001.

SIZE="-1">On Monday, March 12, reporter Brendt and her
partner Lou Aubuchont counted 30 aircraft laying down a lingering
gridwork of plumes between 12:05 and 12:55 pm. Aubuchont, who
witnessed many military maneuvers during his stint as a courier
in U.S. Navy Intelligence, said he had never seen anything like
it.

SIZE="-1">"It looked like an invasion," he
told this reporter. Aubuchont emphasized that unlike aerial battle
exercises, the tankers were unescorted by combat helicopters or
fighter jets. "It was just tankers."

SIZE="-1">After being contacted at a major metropolitan
airport by Brendt, the ATC manager drove to her home on Monday,
March 26 to see for himself how many commercial jets would be
visible from her location. The FAA official counted just three
jets "off in the distance" between 12:05 and 12:55 pm.

SIZE="-1">Of the nine jets on his radar scope during
that same time period on March 12, the official told Brendt she
should have been able to see only one from her location. Instead,
she and Aubuchont counted 30. And the flights continued all day.

SIZE="-1">Speaking on condition of strict anonymity in
a secure location, the chain-smoking government source noted that
the chemicals sprayed by the air force tankers on March 12 showed
up as a "haze" on Air Traffic Control radar scopes.
The weather at the time of the incident was unlimited ceiling
and visibility, in a cloudless blue sky.

SIZE="-1">Such cloudy radar returns are consistent with
clouds of talcum-fine aluminum oxide particles released by high-flying
tankers in a process USAF Weather Force Specialists term, "aerial
obscuration."

SIZE="-1">The Air Traffic Control manager admitted that
the chemicals sprayed by the tankers degraded ATC radar returns.
When asked if this posed a threat to flight safety, he replied,
"not from my perspective."

SIZE="-1">But the ATC manager added that similar military
operations have been carried out "on other dates" and
"other regions" in the USA. When asked whether the air
force jets crossed into Canadian air space, he replied "yes."

SIZE="-1">In November, 1999, a petition signed by 550
residents of Espanola, Ontario was presented to the Canadian government
after alleged overflights by U.S. Air Force tankers sprayed sky-obscuring
chemicals that townspeople claimed were making children and adults
sick over a 50 square-mile area. Lab tests of rainwater falling
through the chemical clouds over Espanola subsequently measured
aluminum levels seven-times higher than permissible federal health
safety limits.

SIZE="-1">A patent issued to Hughes Aircraft Company
in 1991 calls for spreading a "sunscreen" of aluminum
oxide particles to reduce global warming by reflecting 1% of incoming
sunlight. Computer simulations carried out by geophysicist Ken
Caldeira at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory showed
that an anticipated doubling of atmospheric CO2 over the next
50 years would result in no net warming across the globe if the
project touted by hydrogen bomb inventor Edward Teller was carried
out.

SIZE="-1">But Caldeira warned a recent gathering of geophysicists
that the sky shield could drastically cool the upper stratosphere
and "destroy the ozone layer."

SIZE="-1">The inert aluminum oxide spread by the big
jets is not considered to pose a human health risk. But according
to U.S. chemical warfare experts, all talcum-fine particulates
are extremely respirable - and quick to lodge in human lungs.

SIZE="-1">Each KC-135 Stratotanker carries 150,000 pounds
of transferable fuel or chemicals. The KC-10 Extender carries
approximately 320,000 pounds of fuel/chemicals.

SIZE="-1">The FAA official decided to come forward after
his wife was stricken with what doctors diagnosed as Sudden Adult
Onset Asthma following the March 12 aerial onslaught. She has
no history of allergy. Their children also suffered asthmatic
reactions, including an infant son who was rushed to hospital
with a gushing nose bleed.

SIZE="-1">Uncontrollable nose bleeds are commonly reported
in wake of the tanker spraying. Two years ago, Brendt was admitted
to a local Emergency Room with a gushing nosebleed after accidentally
photographing the chemical trails.

SIZE="-1">The particles sprayed into the upper atmosphere
by the big jets also act as nuclei, forming clouds and precipitation.

SIZE="-1">Immediately after the March weather modification
missions, the northeastern seaboard was struck by unseasonable
snowstorms that confounded 70 year-old residents, and piled eight-foot
snowdrifts against Brendt's home. At least one fatality resulted
from collapsing roofs.

SIZE="-1">Our investigation continues.

SIZE="-1"># # #

SIZE="-1">About S.T. Brendt

SIZE="-1">Tiffany Brendt has been a broadcast journalist
and on-air personality for the past eight years with Maine and
New Hampshire radio stations WMWV, WCYY AND WLKZ.

SIZE="-1">Working primarily in the political arena, Ms.
Brendt has interviewed candidates for the House of Representatives
- most recently Martha Fuller Clark - as well as Presidential
candidates Al Gore and Bill Bradley. Her interviews air on the
award winning "Drive Time News Hour on WMWV.

SIZE="-1">About William Thomas

SIZE="-1">William Thomas has been investigating "chemtrails"
since breaking this story for the Environment News Service in
January, 1998. He is the author of Bringing The War Home, Scorched
Earth, and Probing The Chemtrails Conundrum. His documentary videos
include the award-winning "Eco War", and "Chemtrails:
Mystery Lines In The Sky"

SIZE="-1">Specializing in health and environment, Thomas's
award-winning writing has appeared in more than 50 publications
in eight countries. His editorial commentaries have appeared in
The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, The Vancouver Sun and Times-Colonist
newspapers - as well as Earth Island Journal and Ecodecision magazines.
William Thomas has also appeared on CBC radio and television,
CNN and New Zealand national television.

SIZE="-1">Ordering books & videos

SIZE="-1">Subscribe to my Chemtrails Investigation Bulletins
- and get free chemtrail book or video

SIZE="-1">by William Thomas




2 much


edit on 16-5-2011 by stavis because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join