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.

 

Huge chemtrail on Google Earth

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by eastbosbud
 


Are those references to the paper on owning the weather in 2025 from the Air Force University? If they are then your evidence is a complete failure.




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by EartOccupant
A Chemtrail is a trail of chemicals left by a moving object.
even a pure water vapor contrail is technically a chemtrail.


No, you can't just make up your own definition for something and say "argument over".

That's like saying: "Of course there are flying saucers - haven't you seen a frisbee?"

Chemtrail refers to a large scale covert operation of high altitude spraying that resembles persistent contrails. None of the things you mention is like that.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


You just made your own definition....

Read this tread again, jee are you people really that dense?

I'm done with this thread, hopeless.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by OnlyLove
You just made your own definition....


Well, let's use Wikipedia then.

en.wikipedia.org...


The term chemtrail is derived from "chemical trail" in the similar fashion that contrail is a portmanteau of condensation trail. It does not refer to common forms of aerial spraying such as crop dusting, cloud seeding, skywriting, or aerial firefighting. The term specifically refers to aerial trails allegedly caused by the systematic high-altitude release of chemical substances not found in ordinary contrails, resulting in the appearance of uncharacteristic sky tracks


If people can't agree on a definition of something, then all this talk signifies nothing.

However, I think most people here think that "chemtrails" means pretty much what wikipedia says it means. If you are talking about something else, you should use a different term, like "pollution", or "crop dusting".



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Tons of proof here

www.youtube.com...
edit on 27-5-2011 by eastbosbud because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by eastbosbud
 


Sorry.....

Rosalind Peterson is a bit off. Her silly video interviews have been looked at, countless times. She is seriously misinformed about many, many things.

Care to examine her claims, one by one???



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by eastbosbud
Tons of proof here

www.youtube.com...
edit on 27-5-2011 by eastbosbud because: (no reason given)


Thanks for the very informative youtube video, conveniently from someone with an agenda. A middle school teacher wouldn't take youtube as a source in a paper, so why should I?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


Oh, you have yet to be *introduced* to this nutcase, Rosalind Peterson??


.....conveniently from someone with an agenda.


Well....maybe not a "nutter", initially....but, with her "credentials" of education, she passes off as an apparently "smart" person. Too bad, she is woefully ignorant, of many aspects of reality. AND, does not even realize her cognitive disassociation as it continues.....



Just, something to ponder....former Nevada Representative Sharon Angle was elected to Congress. Michelle Bachman, currently serving. BOTH are insane, yet each could pull out and show documentation as to their educational backgrounds.

Shall I mention, Condaleeza Rice?????



edit on Fri 27 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 

nternet trolls, also known as “paid posters” or “paid bloggers,” are increasingly being employed by private corporations as well, often for marketing purposes. In fact, it is a rapidly growing industry.

Trolls use a wide variety of strategies, some of which are unique to the internet, here are just a few:

1) Make outrageous comments designed to distract or frustrate: An Alinsky tactic used to make people emotional, although less effective because of the impersonal nature of the web.

2) Pose as a supporter of the truth, then make comments that discredit the movement: We have seen this even on our own forums — trolls pose as supporters of the Liberty Movement, then post long, incoherent diatribes so as to appear either racist or insane. Here is a live example of this tactic in use on Yahoo! Answers.

The key to this tactic is to make references to common Liberty Movement arguments while at the same time babbling nonsense, so as to make those otherwise valid arguments seem ludicrous by association.

In extreme cases, these “Trojan Horse Trolls” have been known to make posts which incite violence — a technique obviously intended to solidify the false assertions of the notorious MIAC report and other ADL/SPLC publications which purport that constitutionalists should be feared as potential domestic terrorists.

3) Dominate Discussions: Trolls often interject themselves into productive web discussions in order to throw them off course and frustrate the people involved.

4) Prewritten Responses: Many trolls are supplied with a list or database with pre-planned talking points designed as generalized and deceptive responses to honest arguments. 9/11 “debunker” trolls are notorious for this.

5) False Association: This works hand in hand with item #2, by invoking the stereotypes established by the “Trojan Horse Troll.”

For example: calling those against the Federal Reserve “conspiracy theorists” or “lunatics”. Deliberately associating anti-globalist movements with big foot or alien enthusiasts, because of the inherent negative connotations. Using false associations to provoke biases and dissuade people from examining the evidence objectively.

6) False Moderation: Pretending to be the “voice of reason” in an argument with obvious and defined sides in an attempt to move people away from what is clearly true into a “grey area” where the truth becomes “relative.”

7) Straw Man Arguments: A very common technique. The troll will accuse his opposition of subscribing to a certain point of view, even if he does not, and then attacks that point of view. Or, the troll will put words in the mouth of his opposition, and then rebut those specific words. For example: “9/11 truthers say that no planes hit the WTC towers, and that it was all just computer animation. What are they, crazy?”

Sometimes, these strategies are used by average people with serious personality issues. However, if you see someone using these tactics often, or using many of them at the same time, you may be dealing with a paid internet troll.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by eastbosbud
 

Please stop copy and pasting entire pages, we have internet to.Link
If you want to share that, post a link.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by eastbosbud
 


Okay, I think I understand what you're getting at. Your mind is impervious to facts, evidence, and logic. ETA: Not to mention middle school level science and meteorology.

Carry on as you will, just make sure you live on a plot of land that is free of barium and aluminum in the soil.

edit on 5/27/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by eastbosbud
reply to post by adeclerk
 

nternet trolls, also known as “paid posters” or “paid bloggers,” are increasingly being employed by private corporations as well, often for marketing purposes. In fact, it is a rapidly growing industry.

Trolls use a wide variety of strategies, some of which are unique to the internet, here are just a few:

1) Make outrageous comments designed to distract or frustrate: An Alinsky tactic used to make people emotional, although less effective because of the impersonal nature of the web.


right - like "chemtrails exist".....


2) Pose as a supporter of the truth, then make comments that discredit the movement:


Such as saying atmospheric studies show chemtrails exist, or persistent contrails are chemtrails and didn't exist before 1990, 1995 or whenever - claims that are so easily proved wrong that it makes one think why they bother.


3) Dominate Discussions: Trolls often interject themselves into productive web discussions in order to throw them off course and frustrate the people involved.


Yes, yes - spam posts of irrelevant cut and paste, pages of posts of documents that supposedly prove chemtrails exist but have no connection, etc.


4) Prewritten Responses: Many trolls are supplied with a list or database with pre-planned talking points designed as generalized and deceptive responses to honest arguments. 9/11 “debunker” trolls are notorious for this.


Right - and so are chemmies - the pre-written silliness gets repeated all over the place as per point 3....


5) False Association: This works hand in hand with item #2, by invoking the stereotypes established by the “Trojan Horse Troll.”


Yep - if you repeatedly point out that chemtrails are contrials you get labbelled a govt agent, paid disinfo agent, shill, etc.


6) False Moderation: Pretending to be the “voice of reason” in an argument with obvious and defined sides in an attempt to move people away from what is clearly true into a “grey area” where the truth becomes “relative.”


OK - chemmies usually don't bother with this....


7) Straw Man Arguments: A very common technique. The troll will accuse his opposition of subscribing to a certain point of view, even if he does not, and then attacks that point of view.


Ys a very common technique of chemmies who will ask pointed questions trying to get yuo to say something they've got a pre-prepared attack plan for...

Man you've described the chemtrail hoax supporters to a tee.

Only one thing puzzles me - why would the Govt want to support this hoax??


Sometimes, these strategies are used by average people with serious personality issues. However, if you see someone using these tactics often, or using many of them at the same time, you may be dealing with a paid internet troll.


Right - thanks for that - now I know many of the more prominent chemmie supporters might well be paid trolls I can rubbish them with even more of a clear conscience!
edit on 27-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
You have proven my point perfectly... and juging that 90% of your posts attack people that are interested in the chemtrail phenomenon makes you even less credible...i can go on 4 weeks at this... i quite enjoy it..keep it coming



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


i'm guessing private company... hhmmmm MONSANTO?...



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by eastbosbud
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

The term specifically refers to aerial trails allegedly caused by the systematic high-altitude release of chemical substances not found in ordinary contrails, resulting in the appearance of uncharacteristic sky tracks. Supporters of this theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical release may be for solar radiation management, population control,[1] weather control,[2] or biological warfare/chemical warfare and claim that these trails are causing respiratory illnesses and other health problems.[8][9]


More "speculation", which chemtrailers use as evidence. There is evidence of anything in contrails, even after 12 years now of chemtrailers saying there is..



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by eastbosbud
 


Got any "chemtrail" evidence?

I'll wait.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by eastbosbud
 


Seems, even after reading that entire description (did you? Read it, at all??) you wouldn't know the difference between an Internet board troll, and a real person posting actual science and facts even if the troll came up and bit you on the shin.


You know, you could print out ANY of the information written here by any number of he educated and experienced members......PRINT it, and then take it to show your college science professor(or...if you are in High School, teacher) and get an answer about their veracity from someone who isn't just an anonymous somebody on the Internet.


Some how, I seriously doubt anyone will do that, though......because, that may entail learning that he/she is WRONG.....and, even worse, that he/she unfairly SLANDERED strangers on the Internet, by accusing themof being "trolls"....



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

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by knowneedtoknow
 


You SPAMMED this same post, in another thread.

ATS takes a dim view on that sort of behavior.



edit on Wed 25 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



Bwahahahahaha This from the person who SPAMS every thread with the same crap.

Who are you to decide what and when ATS will "take a dim view on that sort of behaviour"

If that is the case then how is it you are still here?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Seagle
 


Supplying information is not spamming. It is the same from post to post because the science principles that govern the formation of contrails does not change.
Unlike "chemtrails", there are decades of science studies on contrails, which support each other, because the science that governs the formation of contrails does not change.

Go look for the earliest definition and story about a "chemtrail", then look at what is being preached as "chemtrail" today. They are very different. Because there is no science behind "chemtrails", so it changes at whim.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join