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.

 

Chemtrails, Trolls, and Deer Poop.

page: 6
38
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 

I am sorry I am not going about things the "right" way, Chadwickus. Sometimes I think the "left" way.
Thanks for posting.




posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helmkat
reply to post by Stewie
 


See the problem is I am also a gardener and I have seen the deer eating my plants and I have-pictures- of them eating the plants. Pictures I could post and with the photo data verify that they have not been altered. I can also take pictures of Japanese beetles eating my plants and Aphids doing their thing. I can clearly show the difference between Deer, Aphids and Japanese beetles how they damage their respective targets. Just for fun I can even add in a Raccoon going into my deck box to steal Koi food and a neighbors cat peeing next to my Maple tree. I just don't point at the damage and say thats -x-!

See the thing is I have real-proof- that cannot be disputed except by the most entrenched of skeptics.

By the same token I know what I cannot prove with 100% accuracy. Last summer, 5 of my Koi went awol. I had no idea what could of done it. In years past I had been hit by Great Blue Herons. I had actually seen them. This time, nothing. All I could find as evidence were some fish scales on the bottom of the pond. Was it a Heron? Egret? Raccoon? Snapping Turtle? Neighbors kids? alien abduction? I could never know. However a few days later I found a Mink swimming in my pond! Minks are very destructive, so I scared him away and he never returned. Still even though I'm pretty sure it was the Mink that took my fish, I cannot be 100% sure. I didn't see him doing the damage, there was no fur or feces. I can only speculate.

Chemtrailers proof disappears under scrutiny like tissue paper in a super nova. They see a trail in the woods and say its been made by Brown bears when in reality it has been made by white tailed deer.



No, I think its just a case of your weeds were whacked.

Or you're whacked on weed, one or the other.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


If there is evidence of deer eating the plants, photos of deer eating the plants, deer poop which has been shown to be deer poop, deer experts attets to the deer being deer, hundreds of studies have been conducted regarding the implications of deer eating the plants, and we're currently investigating ways of preventing the deer eating the plants, then you expect us to ignore all this and consider the possibility it was really mutant grasshoppers?

Why?

Why do you not think that it's deer?

What makes you think we're all wrong?

Why are you so sure it's really mutant grasshoppers?



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Seagle
 





No, I think its just a case of your weeds were whacked. Or you're whacked on weed, one or the other.


Even those whacked on weed have a clue where you obviously do not. Tank you for the typical and usual chemtrailer response.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 

Because this thread is not meant to discuss chemtrails, I will refrain from that subject if you don't mind. There are plenty of chemtrail threads.
I will say this.
I, and I have to assume YOU as well, do not know what top secret operations are being conducted as it relates to geoengineering and/or weather warfare. Perhaps you know this subject has been studied extensively, and many papers written on the subject. I don't believe that this fact is in dispute.
You are probably quite aware that innocent people have been subjected to all forms of experiments, with and without their knowledge of the true nature of the experiment(s). History tells us this has been a worldwide phenomenon carried out by governments around the world. There is no indication that governments are no longer engaged in these practices, in fact, I think we would be foolish to think so.
I was born a painter. I noticed there was green in a sunset at a very young age. I painted it. You will not read that I believe chemtrails cause green sunsets. I have noticed a very real change in the atmosphere, and it concerns me. These are subjective observations...they are my own. I am not trying to convince you that you should be concerned. Or, that deer are pooping in my garden.
Thanks for posting.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Stewie, if you spent even a fraction of your time presenting evidence to support your theories as you do attacking people who ask for evidence, you might have an informative thread.

Present some evidence.

ETA: It's interesting, too, because before reading this ATS 'chemtrail' threads, I always assumed they were spraying something. But after reading several threads with not a shred of evidence beyond pictures and videos of contrails (and entire threads devoted to calling anyone who asks for evidence all kinds of names), I have begun to see it's all bunk. Just 'true believers' who have as much evidence for chemtrails as fanatic christians have for the existence of Jeebus.
edit on 29-5-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Nice analogy, OP.

Chemtrails are like many other topics here at ATS, in that they are extremely hard to 'Prove.'

Anecdotally, it's pretty obvious to me that planes are leaving trails that linger for MUCH longer than they used to.

Unless you work for Boeing or General Dynamics, there is no way to prove or disprove the theory that these trails have something more than jet exhaust in them, which, by any measure, IS very toxic.

Some topics are too complex to be figured out by a bunch of armchair conspiracists, one way or the other.

It really all comes down to the psychology of belief.

Those with whom it resonates will believe in chamtrails in the face of every evidence to the contrary, those whom do not believe WILL not, even if a jet flew into their bathroom and left a gigantic chemtrail upon both their butt cheeks.

It is refreshing to see someone whom can see the bigger picture through all the trolls and debunkers and blind followers, however. Good on ya, Mate!



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimnuggits

Anecdotally, it's pretty obvious to me that planes are leaving trails that linger for MUCH longer than they used to.


Therein lies the problem. Scientifically it's demonstable that planes are not leaving trails that linger longer. Since they were doing the same decades ago. And being studied for that very reason.

Who do you trust? The bloke in the pub? Or science? Up to you.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimnuggits


Anecdotally, it's pretty obvious to me that planes are leaving trails that linger for MUCH longer than they used to.


Anecdotally? What if there was evidence of contrails from 5 decades ago 'lingering' for just as long?


Unless you work for Boeing or General Dynamics, there is no way to prove or disprove the theory that these trails have something more than jet exhaust in them, which, by any measure, IS very toxic.


Of course there is. You could rent a plane to tail one of these alleged chemtrail' planes. You could release a balloon up into their 'chemtrail' to take samples. The list goes on and on how this could be put to the test.



Those with whom it resonates will believe in chamtrails in the face of every evidence to the contrary, those whom do not believe WILL not, even if a jet flew into their bathroom and left a gigantic chemtrail upon both their butt cheeks.


Well, I've seen NUMEROUS detailed, informed and referenced explanations of why those are CONTRAILS,but I have yet to see even ONE reasonable claim of chemtrails with fact. SO putting those two camps together is inaccurate.

Again, where's the evidence, chemtrailers?



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by jimnuggits


Anecdotally, it's pretty obvious to me that planes are leaving trails that linger for MUCH longer than they used to.


Anecdotally? What if there was evidence of contrails from 5 decades ago 'lingering' for just as long?

Is there evidence from five decades ago?


Unless you work for Boeing or General Dynamics, there is no way to prove or disprove the theory that these trails have something more than jet exhaust in them, which, by any measure, IS very toxic.


Of course there is. You could rent a plane to tail one of these alleged chemtrail' planes. You could release a balloon up into their 'chemtrail' to take samples. The list goes on and on how this could be put to the test.

I think that it would be difficult to find a plane to rent that could reach that altitude.


Those with whom it resonates will believe in chamtrails in the face of every evidence to the contrary, those whom do not believe WILL not, even if a jet flew into their bathroom and left a gigantic chemtrail upon both their butt cheeks.


Well, I've seen NUMEROUS detailed, informed and referenced explanations of why those are CONTRAILS,but I have yet to see even ONE reasonable claim of chemtrails with fact. SO putting those two camps together is inaccurate.

Again, where's the evidence, chemtrailers?


Contrails, by definition, are chemicals realeased from jets into the upper atmosphere. Even if the trails are only unspent jet fuel and exhaust, these chemicals are extremely toxic, and falling down on top of us and our food.

'Evidence' is as subjective as 'good' or 'evil'.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimnuggits

Contrails, by definition, are chemicals realeased from jets into the upper atmosphere. Even if the trails are only unspent jet fuel and exhaust, these chemicals are extremely toxic, and falling down on top of us and our food.


Well, by that definition, cars leave 'chemtrails' too.

Of course, your definition is inaccurate. A "Contrails' is water vapor. Go ahead, look it up.




Contrails (play /ˈkɒntreɪlz/; short for "condensation trails") or vapour trails are artificial clouds that are the visible trails of condensed water vapour made by the exhaust of aircraft engines. As the hot exhaust gases cool in the surrounding air they may precipitate a cloud of microscopic water droplets. If the air is cold enough, this trail will comprise tiny ice crystals.[1]


Those who say they are spraying 'chemtrails' make some very specific claims about what sorts of chemicals are in those. And yet not one shred of evidence has been provided to prove the existence of those chemcials in those trails. Not one.

Like I said, I used to assume this stuf was true. Then I took some time to seek evidence. There is none.
edit on 29-5-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by here4awhile
 

Real eyes realize real lies, no doubt. A, B, and C couldn't help themselves, they HAD to post. D,E, and F are just dying to.
We have to keep our sense of humor about these things. You have to in an upside down world where anonymous "people" try to dictate reality.
Thanks for posting.

Part of the just dying to crowd:
www.bariumblues.com...



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jimnuggits
 



.....these chemicals are extremely toxic.....



NO, they aren't.



..... and falling down on top of us and our food.


NO, they aren't. Really, is lack of science knowledge this pervasive? It is disturbing,t o see it so often.

Show just ONE example of a cirrus cloud "falling down on top of us".......



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I'm gonna go ahead and make ATS history here, by saying 'I have no idea what I'm talking about.'

I look up, and I see trails from planes making clouds.

Either I've never noticed it before, or there are just more planes doing it.

I am no atmospheric scientist, nor super secret black ops pilot.

I make my humble little observations. Period.

It seems that some of you have done some serious research on the topic, and cheers to you for that.

Whichever way this argument goes, I can live with it.

To me, the value lies not with the final outcome of the debate, but that we here at ATS can (and do) question Everything.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
This is hilarious.. Stewie started this thread to show how there can never be a civil discussion on chemtrails due to certain people attacker others for no reason.. And guess what happens? Funny thing is its only about 2-3 people who are attacking others for discussing chemtrails yet they are on EVERY SINGLE chemtrail thread.. Looks a little odd to me like some of you have a personal bone to pick with chemtrails..

I dont even bother to discuss chemtrails anymore.. I glance at the threads once and while and they always start out as nice conversations on the topic until Weedwhacker comes along with his unchallengeable wit and proves that intelligence isnt needed to discourage, just pure stupidity and repetition.

If your a know it all with all the answers to the universe than please dont respond to me.. I deal with only humane individuals who are able to discuss things without resorting to name calling. You know who you are.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


So, your point is that jet fuel isn't toxic, and the water vapor in clouds never reaches the surface? Now who's science is lacking?



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by Mactire
Chemtrails aren't toxic.... allegedly. They're used to "glaze" the atmosphere to amplify whatever the hell HAARP [allegedly] does. That's all I know about chemtrails from my source.

That is absurd, do you have a reliable source for these claims?
How do they aim the stationary HAARP antenna array at these 'chemtrails'?


The HAARP antenna array is not "stationary" (each dish rotates, just like every other antenna dish on the planet). High wattage radio waves are bounced off the ionosphere. The ones who demand "evidence" the loudest are ALWAYS the ones who refuse to do their own homework.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 





He had unusually high levels of elements that occur naturally in the soil. Maybe he should stop playing in the dirt?


Ahh, how could I forget that tired argument? That's mighty presumptive on your part that they spend enough time digging in the dirt to elevate their blood serum levels of barium over 1500x's the normal level. What do you know about what these people do? Plus, I might buy that for aluminum but barium?


Barium is never found in nature in its pure form due to its reactivity with air. Its oxide is historically known as baryta but it reacts with water and carbon dioxide and is not found as a mineral. The most common naturally occurring minerals are the very insoluble barium sulfate, BaSO4 (barite), and barium carbonate, BaCO3 (witherite)...The abundance of barium is 0.0425 % in the Earth's crust and 13 µg/L in sea water. It occurs in the minerals barite (as the sulfate) and witherite (as the carbonate).[2] Although witherite deposits were mined from the 17th century till 1969[4] in northern England, for example in the Settlingstones Mine near Newbrough,[5] today nearly all barium is mined as barite.



Background levels of barium in the environment are very low. The air that most people breathe contains about 0.0015 parts of barium per billion parts of air (ppb). The air around factories that release barium into the air has only about 0.33 ppb or less of barium. Most surface water and public water supplies contain only about 0.38 parts of barium per million parts of water (ppm) or less. In some areas that have underground water wells, drinking water may contain more than the 1 ppm limit set by EPA. The highest amount measured from these water wells has been 10 ppm. The highest amount of barium found in soil is about 100 to 3,000 ppm. Some foods, such as Brazil nuts, seaweed, fish, and certain plants, may contain high amounts of barium. The amount of barium found in food and water usually is not high enough to be a health concern. However, information is still being collected to find out if long-term exposure to low levels of barium causes any health problems. Barium waste may be released to air, land, and water during industrial operations. Barium is released into the air during the mining and processing of ore and during manufacturing operations. Some industries dump wastes containing barium compounds onto land or into the ocean and other bodies of water. Barium compounds are found in more than 150 hazardous waste sites in the United States. We do not know the exact number of hazardous waste sites containing barium because not all waste sites have been examined for barium. People with the greatest known risk of exposure to high levels of barium are those working in industries that make or use barium compounds. Most these exposed persons breathe air that contains barium sulfate or barium carbonate. Sometimes they are exposed to one of the more harmful forms of barium (for example, barium chloride or barium hydroxide) by breathing the dust from these compounds or by getting them on their skin. Many hazardous waste sites contain barium compounds, and these sites may be a source of exposure for people living and working near them. Exposure near hazardous waste sites may occur by breathing dust, eating soil or plants, or drinking water that is polluted with barium. People near these sites may also get soil or water that contains barium on their skin.


www.eco-usa.net...

However it would also be very presumptious to assume that people in Mojave County and Phoenix in AZ and people in Texas live near Barium processing plants without knowing exactly where they live because as the site I originally linked to said...


Please remember:
a) We live in different households and different areas.
b) We drink different water. Some of us are on County or City water, some like myself I have my own well. After the email from AZ Rep. Nancy McLain that insinuated that the Barium in Golden Valley could be because of "water haulers", (by the way Rep. McLain, none of us in the experiment water haul) I did perform the water test on my well, and absolutely no Barium was found.
c) We eat different food.
d) The only thing we have in common: we breath the same air!!


mohavecountyconstitution.com...


It is the same dismissiveness that the OP was referencing and it does not close the book on these people's blood serum barium levels, regardless of how much you try to argue otherwise.




edit on 29-5-2011 by coyotepoet because: added another quote



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by WayfaringStranger
 

Homework?
The HAARP antenna array is not composed of dishes. It uses dipole antennas.


www.haarp.alaska.edu...

edit on 5/29/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 


How does the barium fall several miles from the sky without reacting with oxygen or water, then?

I guess we shouldn't assume that one of the most abundent chemicals on Earth got into his bloodstream from some explainable means (absorption through skin from dirt, inhale airborne dirt, etc), it probably came from 'chemplanes' miles above his head!

Explain again how barium fits into your 'chemtrail' fantasy?



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join