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.

 

China admits to dumping chemtrails for weather modification. What do they look like??

page: 24
79
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


The memory problem is yours. That link has been posted numerous times throughout this thread, and has been responded to numerous times.

You aren't posting the full description and the 2nd reference from that very same page is an article that refers to cloud seeding as chemtrails.



Sucks when your own source refutes the garbage your posting doesn't it? And like I said, it's been posted... for days in a row now.... When will you learn?....




posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Also from your own link:


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]


And you see that [2] there? Follow that source and it takes you to an independent article that says even cloud-seeding is a form of chemtrails. Chemical. Trails.

You've already claimed both solar radiation management and weather control have nothing to do with chemtrails, which flies in the face of your own source. Btw either of us could edit that page within a minute.


But you cut it off before that, of course. And like I said... this has been beat to death on this thread already.
edit on 31-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

I think you're good at what you do...VERY convincing. You have an answer for everything. So tell me...what is the cause for the weather change here, in Baja California? I've noticed these GRADUAL changes, over the past 4 years. How do i know? Well, see...about 7 years ago...i bought a nice above ground pool, that i used to fill up around Apr-May, and take down around Nov-Dec. I did this for about 3 years...until about 4 years ago..when i stopped because it just wasn't hot enough.

I remember when i first got here, 12 years ago, it was SCORCHIN' hot and now, i'm still in heavy clothing. As a matter of fact, i can count about 6 days...that we've had 'pool' type weather...and that's within the last 3 years.

Please do tell me, WHY it's getting colder here, in Southern Cali? I've been trying to figure it out...since i haven't been able to put up my pool...so, maybe you could enlighten me?

I know for certain, these chemtrails are changing our weather. They're making it cooler and bringing MUCH more precipitation. It's been raining here, a lot more than usual, over the past 3 years; and last month, we had a brief HAIL storm. I'm sure you'll have the answers and i'll look forward to reading your "THIS IS NORMAL" theories.

I'll put it like this...last years rain was so bad, it got me 2012ing my house. Everything on the outside is getting waterproofed...because i have a bad feeling, next year we're gonna get lots of rain, and crazy weather, here on the west coast!



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by nuttin4U
 


In Baja?

Surely, you have heard of El Niño and El Niña?


I made a post, in another thread...a Mod liked it, so I will use it again Discussing the odd weather, of late in the States. Especially, the severe weather. It comes in cycles, and each cycle isn't always identical:


Originally posted by weedwhacker


Not only this:





Originally posted by seagull
That region has a history of storms triggering mass numbers of tornados.




Originally posted by weedwhacker
And, all the rest.....anyone who pays attention to the global weather patterns (and paid attention in school, to science and meteorology courses) would know about the cyclic phenomenon called "El Niño".


El Niño - and What is the Southern Oscillation Anyway?! (Article written in 2003)

It is believed that El Nino may have contributed to the 1993 Mississippi and 1995 California floods, drought conditions in South America, Africa and Australia. It is also believed that El Nino contributed to the lack of serious storms such as hurricanes in the North Atlantic which spared states like Florida from serious storm related damage.




El Niño: Online meteorology guide

Impacts on global weather

Detection and Prediction



So What is an El Niño, Anyway?




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


What is the difference between a chemical trail, and a chemtrail? If one had no knowledge of any conspiracy, how would your answer change?

And why do the standard truncation of terms, at least regarding avionics, not apply because of a conspiracy theory? Why is that much credence given to the used terms by those who propose to debunk it as non-existent?

Linking a wikipedia page that is titled "the chemtrail conspiracy," i am quite certain the bias and vernacular will support the idea that all chemical trails are part of some large conspiracy by mere precedent.

However, this does not dictate what a "chemical trail" is as a universal definition. Moreover, those who feel they are impossible and non-existent seemingly allow the "nonsense" conspiracy they fight against to define the very terms and intricacies of the battle at hand. Same source of information, different directions of travel. Do you define chemtrails through a chemtrailers perspective, simply from the other side of pond (nay instead of yeah)? Neither side sees the orbit happening. Defining oneself to only know one part of any wave, confining oneself to anothers definition of the unfalsifiable. Should we all be so lucky to see from outside before the "inevitable" spiral pulls us in...

Chemical trails (truncated as chemtrails) are a larger topic than the conspiracy itself, by their very definition. Why is a conspiracy, which you and others propose as nonsense, allowed enough credence and credibility in your perspective to allow it to change a "container" term to the "contained?" Why are you relegating yourself to only using the term as it applies to a conspiracy theory which you say you give no time of day?

For me, i will continue to look at it as a container term, as that is simply more appropriate given the standard definition of the words. i will not personally allow a conspiracy i find unlikely to define a term that has incredibly vague attributes in the first place (as has been demonstrated, very clearly, by those making jokes about it!). So, in that, i would state that chemtrails/chemical trails do exist, because i am not interested in the dogmatic definition provided only by a conspiracy theory i do not feel is likely.

To give a simile (and the only one i can seem to think of right now, pardon the topic), it is like allowing the implausibility of the "christian god," to deny the idea of all definitions of "god." However, some of us will not allow such things to usurp the terms that are being used, by nature of the idea that the subjective notions are not given such influence and power over the thought processes involved. Some also call this "very stubborn and headstrong."


i will not allow the evangelists define my definition of god, why do you allow the "believers" to sway yours?

Take Chemtrails Back!



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I don't keep coming back to it - you do. And how is that relevant to what science can do? I take my evidence from science - "science" can certainly tell the difference - that is why I don't use what I see as proof of anything on its own.


Okay, you are shown a picture of white trails behind a plane. How are you going to apply "science" to this? With your eyeballs again? By resorting to your fallacious argument that you don't have proof of anything else so therefore you have automatically proven it must be contrails?


I assert that 76% of all water sprayed from fire trucks in the last 12 years was not water but secret chemicals for a nefarious purpose. I have no evidence to prove this but it is possible.

Because you can't tell what is coming out of the end of the firehose with your eyes, don't tell me it is just water.

For me to accept I am wrong you need to go out and test 76% of the liquid that is coming out of the end of firehoses and send it to a lab to test it's exact contents.

If you don't I will sit here posting again and again and again that it is nefarious chemicals that are part of a secret plot and you can't prove otherwise.

I have no reason to suggest this is true other than my belief, I have no evidence other than what I see with my own eyes but I still state this is entirely possible.

Prove me wrong.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by SirCoxone
I assert that 76% of all water sprayed from fire trucks in the last 12 years was not water but secret chemicals for a nefarious purpose. I have no evidence to prove this but it is possible.

Because you can't tell what is coming out of the end of the firehose with your eyes, don't tell me it is just water.


Yeah, yeah, sarcastic drivel, what else is new.

At least I can give you a means and a motive for dumping crap into the atmosphere:




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
I assert that 76% of all water sprayed from fire trucks in the last 12 years was not water but secret chemicals for a nefarious purpose. I have no evidence to prove this but it is possible.

Because you can't tell what is coming out of the end of the firehose with your eyes, don't tell me it is just water.


Yeah, yeah, sarcastic drivel, what else is new.

At least I can give you a means and a motive for dumping crap into the atmosphere:



It wasn't sarcastic drivel, I was turning your argument to a different subject. Are you telling me it isn't secret chemicals coming out of fire hoses?

You can't tell tell just by looking at it, so how do you know?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SirCoxone
It wasn't sarcastic drivel, I was turning your argument to a different subject. Are you telling me it isn't secret chemicals coming out of fire hoses?

You can't tell tell just by looking at it, so how do you know?


I don't know, but neither do I care because I don't often see firefighters spraying water on things anyway.

I see these lines in the sky all the time.

And I just gave you a means and motive above for why chemicals would be dumped, and you have not provided the same for your firehose nonsense. Btw I just started researching this in the past few days but already I'm beginning to find out why there are so many of you people all over these topics like white on rice, and it disgusts me. You probably don't even really know why you're posting here, do you? If you had any idea, you would not be doing this.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
It wasn't sarcastic drivel, I was turning your argument to a different subject. Are you telling me it isn't secret chemicals coming out of fire hoses?

You can't tell tell just by looking at it, so how do you know?


I don't know, but neither do I care because I don't often see firefighters spraying water on things anyway.

I see these lines in the sky all the time.

And I just gave you a means and motive above for why chemicals would be dumped, and you have not provided the same for your firehose nonsense. Btw I just started researching this in the past few days but already I'm beginning to find out why there are so many of you people all over these topics like white on rice, and it disgusts me. You probably don't even really know why you're posting here, do you? If you had any idea, you would not be doing this.



As far as you know... which isn't very far, considering you can't look at liquid from a hose and tell the difference between simple water vapor or any number of other chemicals.

We keep having to come back to this point. You admit you can't chemically analyze liquid just by looking at them with your eyes and yet you want to keep insinuating that they can be nothing else but water vapor. Obviously you would have no idea.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by MurrayTORONTO
i found the pic i saved of the cloud coverage on obama inauguration day... ;p


edit on 30-5-2011 by MurrayTORONTO because: (no reason given)

I came across this post and reading it, I suddenly had my doubts as to it's legitimacy and truthiness.
The Inauguration of Barack Obama was in Washington DC on Tuesday, January 20, 2009.
The above seems to be a weather map of that day...although a strange looking one -- devoid of many clouds usually found on that day in MurrayTORONTO's posted weather map.
I believe the correct weather system map(s) are found here....for that day in January......
rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov...



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by B.Morrison

On the subject on Silver Iodine something fell into my lap a little while ago, thought it would be interesting to share here -

www.sciencelab.com...

certainly is nasty stuff isn't it?


not particularly - compare it to unleaded petrol for example -
AgI:

Acute oral toxicity (LD50): 2820 mg/kg [Rat]



Unleaded petrol -

Low toxicity: LD50 > 2000 mg/kg, Rat.


(www.kprl.co.ke...)

both arer irritants, but petrol is additionally capable of doing significant harm to your lungs and is a carcinogen.

We use all sorts of mildly toxic materials every day from alcohol to acetone.

As someone said somewhere else - if you're not actually snorting a line of it then you're not going to suffer anything....and I'll add that if you are snorting it then you've obviously already suffered plenty of brain damage!!




edit on 31-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


We aren't filling our cars with silver iodine. Nor are we spraying petrol in the sky. I'm sure leaded petrols nastier than silver iodine too but we aren't spraying it in the air and mixing it with rain which then is absorbed by the vege's your mom & pop grow out the back.

peace,
-Bob

edit on 1/6/11 by B.Morrison because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by B.Morrison
 

He is suggesting that cloud seeding is potentially dangerous to the health of living organisms via the interaction of chemicals with said life and that as such the seeders of clouds have vested interest in keeping that quiet.


Sorry Bob. "Suggesting" and "potentially" prove nothing other than the author's ignorance and grasping at straws.

Given the fact that cloud seeding is almost 100 years old, and that it is used arounfd the world, there is no reasonable basis for any assertion that those involved are "keeping that quiet."

You can't create a conspiracy where none exists, except in your own mind.

No one has published any reports anywhere of chemical harm resulting from cloud seeding.

deny ignorance

jw



fair enough but A.) is it dangerous & B.) whats to stop anyone who wants to from adding things to make it dangerous.

there's still life in this topic is all I'm getting at.

-Bob



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.Morrison


there's still life in this topic is all I'm getting at.

-Bob


only to someone looking for a fight. Don't be that guy.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by B.Morrison


there's still life in this topic is all I'm getting at.

-Bob


only to someone looking for a fight. Don't be that guy.



I will be that guy, clearly you want to fight...


Funny how people want to fight so hard to deny the change in the skies, this is clearly one of the greatest operations against logic i have ever seen.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by B.Morrison


there's still life in this topic is all I'm getting at.

-Bob


only to someone looking for a fight. Don't be that guy.



I will be that guy, clearly you want to fight...


Funny how people want to fight so hard to deny the change in the skies, this is clearly one of the greatest operations against logic i have ever seen.


Logic.
that is the last thing you will see on the chemtrail side. Pure faith. Blind faith I should say. When logic is pointed out and linked to scientific sources, it is scoffed at and ignored only to be overshadowed by pictures of contrails that get labeled "chemtrails".

The only thing that keeps me in these debates is the people who are on the fence and will still listen to reason. I figure the less crazed paranoid lunatics out there the better. But what do I know.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I keep wondering if there are chem trails in washington state.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Also from your own link:


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]


And you see that [2] there? Follow that source and it takes you to an independent article that says even cloud-seeding is a form of chemtrails. Chemical. Trails.


No - I dont 'see that on ther anywhere - have you made it up to support your pet definition of chemtrals??


This bit is still there -


It does not refer to common forms of aerial spraying such as crop dusting, cloud seeding, skywriting, or aerial firefighting.


Hmm???

Regardless of what potential use peole may fantasise about, clud seeding is not one of them.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
No - I dont 'see that on ther anywhere - have you made it up to support your pet definition of chemtrals??


www.mtshastanews.com...

That is the 2nd reference just like I told you. Amazing that you can't even locate the reference (2) when I even told you which one it was.


This bit is still there -


And it still contradicts other statements from the very same page.



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join