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.

 

Its happend before, so why not now?

page: 13
23
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
All it would take is one chemtrail being found. But alas, in 100+ years of aviation, no one has ever found a chemtrail.


Actaully, the US army produced chemtrails 50 years ago. Just because the US government hasn't deemed you important enough to see the evidence doesn't change the fact they have admitted to doing just that many times.


You can go on to deny that fact all you want because its obvious to anyone with a open minded opinion.

Does it somehow take away from all your debunking of actual contrails claimed to be chemtrails to admit the US army once produced chemtrails?
edit on 14-6-2011 by FreeSpeaker because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


They produced 'chemtrails' by your definition. And that's fine, just don't start saying they made 'chemtrails' and admitted to it when your definition is a deviation of the original 'chemtrail' definition (and a gross misrepresentation, really).



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


Only if you can show that those chemtrails looked exactly the same as what people today call chemtrails


Otherwise you're talking about something different and its therefore irrelevant to current discussions.

After all, no-one denies they used mustard gas in WWI. But does that prove chemtrails today?



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by adeclerk
All it would take is one chemtrail being found. But alas, in 100+ years of aviation, no one has ever found a chemtrail.


Actaully, the US army produced chemtrails 50 years ago. Just because the US government hasn't deemed you important enough to see the evidence doesn't change the fact they have admitted to doing just that many times.


You can go on to deny that fact all you want because its obvious to anyone with a open minded opinion.

Does it somehow take away from all your debunking of actual contrails claimed to be chemtrails to admit the US army once produced chemtrails?


You're not helping anyone here. By broadening the definition of chemtrails to be any chemical sprayed from a plane, then you simply make "chemtails" a non-issue, and you have to find a NEW word to describe whatever subset of things that the actual conspiracy theory refers to.



sulphurtrioxide? Sounds like a chemical. Also poisonous. Chemtrail?



"chemical spray tanks". Blatant chemtrails, and in 1944 too.



They even sprayed poison gas!



And no, admitting one thing (which nobody has denied, that I know of) it does not take anything away from debunking other things.
edit on 14-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


and here's a wiki article on one of the US's airborne smoke generators - en.wikipedia.org...

Sort of fails the "happening now and in the last 15 years", and "is a secret govt programme" tests!!


Also - WW2 US intelligence report on Germanaerial smoke screening - www.lonesentry.com...

Here's British Pathe footage of an aircraft laying a smokescreen - looks like it's a biplane - the scren clearly doesn't look like a contrail BTW...and it looks like it might be above the old WW1 German ships tested for destruction post WW1 so this might be in the early 1920's

www.britishpathe.com...

And here's American LB-6 a/c laynig one in 1930 - looks similar to the previous, and is great video of some long forgotten a/c

www.criticalpast.com...

edit on 14-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


They produced 'chemtrails' by your definition. And that's fine, just don't start saying they made 'chemtrails' and admitted to it when your definition is a deviation of the original 'chemtrail' definition (and a gross misrepresentation, really).


Lets look at the definition of a chemtrail.


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, weather control, or biological warfare/chemical warfare and claim that these trails are causing respiratory illnesses and other health problems.


So the US army, unknowingly to the US&Canadian populations, testing spraying chemicals from aircraft for the purpose of studying bio warfare is not the definition of chemtrails? They dropped more than one chemical, not just zinc cadmium sulfide as stated here.


From 1950 through 1953, the US Army sprayed toxic chemicals over 6 cities in the United States and Canada, in order to test dispersal patterns of chemical weapons. Army records stated that the chemicals[/b[ which were sprayed on the city of Winnipeg, Canada, included zinc cadmium sulfide.

Wiki

I'm sure the US amry was dilligent enough to test at varying altitudes and I would bet some marks were produced at higher altitudes with one of the other tests like bacillus globigii.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
And if you really want to complete confusing the picture, yes the government is STILL spraying "chemtrails". Here's a C-130 spraying 1,2-Dibromo-2,2-dichloroethyl dimethylphosphate (Dibrom), over populated areas, in 2008



And yes, it's poisonous.

So what's the controversy again?



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
So the US army, unknowingly to the US&Canadian populations, testing spraying chemicals from aircraft for the purpose of studying bio warfare is not the definition of chemtrails? They dropped more than one chemical, not just zinc cadmium sulfide as stated here.


Sure, it's arguable, and probably did not look at all like what people nowadays refer to as "Chemtrails",but let's go with it.

It does not change anything. We all know that the government has secrets, and that planes can spray things. There's still no evidence that it's actually being done.

Or would you consider Dibrom spraying to be a chemtrail too?



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


Perhaps because the current theory holds that is is happening right now and for the last 13-15 years, having started in the 1990's, and are often identified as coming from commercial aircraft?

Certainly if those experiments were being carried out today they would meet the defintion.

Got any evidence that they are being carried out today, or in the last 13-25 years?

Knowledge that the Govt has secretly sprayed "stuff" in the past is certainly a reason to be suspicious - but it is not actually evidence of anything being carried out right now.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


Perhaps because the current theory holds that is is happening right now and for the last 13-15 years, having started in the 1990's, and are often identified as coming from commercial aircraft?


Funny how it started up after after Operations LAC and Dew were revealed to the public. I do believe those operations are the basis for the entire chemtrail conspiracy and thats why I will ignore the arguement that the chemtrail conspiracy is a current theory and that because of that LAC and Dew don't matter. If LAC & Dew were never revealed, there probably would be no chemtrail conspiracy.


Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Certainly if those experiments were being carried out today they would meet the defintion.


Thank you for the open admission, thats been my main focus on this thread. The US army has created chemtrails in the past so therefore chemtrails do actualy exist or to be more accurate, have existed.


Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Got any evidence that they are being carried out today, or in the last 13-25 years?


Nope, just suspicions. I have admitted that all along.


Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Knowledge that the Govt has secretly sprayed "stuff" in the past is certainly a reason to be suspicious - but it is not actually evidence of anything being carried out right now.


No its not but it does prove that chemtrails have been used in the past and they therefore do exist. Based on that maybe some of the debunkers can stop hammering everyone who simply believes in chemtrails. Hammer away at photos of contrails and questionable science all you want but this "there's no proof chemtrails have ever existed and anyone who believes they do is an idiot" routine by some debunkers has to stop.

To me, the only real question about chemtrails is are they still secretly being used?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Or would you consider Dibrom spraying to be a chemtrail too?


Nice picture.


Well, lets take a look at that defination again.


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.


Based on your photo the only thing that eliminates dibrom spraying as a chemtrail is the fact its officialy known to the public. If it was a secret government project and the public had no knowledge of such activity it would actualy be a chemtrail.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
To me, the only real question about chemtrails is are they still secretly being used?


If it's not secret, then it's not a chemtrail. So your question is meaningless. See Dibrom spraying, above.

[ETA] clarifying: since "Chemtrail" implies secrecy, a better question would be "are there any secret government chemical spraying programs".
edit on 15-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



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

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


Only if you can show that those chemtrails looked exactly the same as what people today call chemtrails



As I said, some of you debunkers are hung up on chemtrails having to look "exactly" like something, namely contrails.

The definition simply says uncharacteristic sky marks.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


Only if you can show that those chemtrails looked exactly the same as what people today call chemtrails



As I said, some of you debunkers are hung up on chemtrails having to look "exactly" like something, namely contrails.

The definition simply says uncharacteristic sky marks.


No, its the chemtrail mantra that contrails are supposed to have a specific appearance and duration, and that when it falls outside of that, then such trail should be assumed to be chemical in nature.

The debunkers, and science for that matter, assert that contrail appearance depends on multiple factors, and that there is no specific duration that it has to fall into.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 

What makes "chemtrails" uncharacteristic?

Chemtrails, coming from "chemical trails" in the same fashion that contrail comes from "condensation trail" is a term coined to suggest that contrails are formed by something other than a natural process of engine exhaust hitting the cold air in the atmosphere. Proponents of chemtrails characterize these chemical trails as streams that persist for hours, and by their criss-crossing, grid-like patterns, or parallel stripes which eventually blend to form large clouds. Proponents view the presence of visible color spectra in the streams, unusual concentrations of sky tracks in a single area, or lingering tracks left by unmarked or military airplanes flying in atypical altitudes or locations as markers of chemtrails.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Chemtrails" are not cloud seeding, not crop dusting, not atmospheric tests. "Chemtrails" as defined by those who coined the term, are persistent contrails.


He went on to explain the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail. He stated that when a jet airplane flies at a certain altitude, a visible trail of streaks of condensed water vapor sometimes form in the wake of the aircraft. This is called a contrail. Contrails are normal and usually dissipate in a few seconds. They are very similar to when we breathe in cold weather. According to Oliveira, what occurs behind a SAG plane spraying aerosols is quite different. What can be seen is a thick white line also called a chemtrail that lingers in the sky for several hours. The SAG lines are sprayed into the upper atmosphere and then spread out forming what then appear to be clouds. The particles from these aerosols then fall to the ground where they enter our soil and water and can also be inhaled.

www.countercurrents.org...

You have shown no evidence that the tests done during the cold war bear any resemblance to "chemtrails" or persistent contrails. So what do you do? Change the definition. Good argument.
edit on 6/15/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


Here's the entire definition of chemtrails and nowhere does it say they have to behave or look a certain way. Just because the contrail/chmetrail debate is the most debated aspect of chemtrail conspiracy doesn't mean its the only aspect.

Unless your using a different definition other than wiki.


The chemtrail conspiracy 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 programs directed by government officials.[1]

As a result of the popularity of the theory, official agencies have received thousands of complaints from people who have demanded an explanation.[1][2] The existence of chemtrails has been repeatedly denied by government agencies and scientists around the world, who say the trails are normal contrails.[3]

The United States Air Force maintains that the theory is a hoax which "has been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications".[4] The United Kingdom's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has stated that chemtrails "are not scientifically recognised phenomena".[5] The Canadian Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has stated that "The term 'chemtrails' is a popularised expression, and there is no scientific evidence to support their existence."[6]

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.[7] 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]

Wiki

Uncharacteristic sky tracks, not contrails.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Uncharacteristic sky tracks, not contrails.


Like what, for example?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 

You skipped a part.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
You have shown no evidence that the tests done during the cold war bear any resemblance to "chemtrails" or persistent contrails. So what do you do? Change the definition. Good argument.
edit on 6/15/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Nice try Phage. Love all you're short 2-3 sentance replys.


I have changed no definition. I'm using wiki's definition exactly as its written.


If you truly believe LAC or Dew did not produce one chemtrail that fine, its you're opinion. Thing about opinions is everyone has one.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Uncharacteristic sky tracks, not contrails.


Like what, for example?


I didn't write the definition, if you don't like it take that up with wiki.


I would call a barium cloud formation a chemtrail IF it was a secret witheld from the public for example. It would definitly fit the bill of uncharacteristic sky tracks.

As you also know well, there are no photos I can point to that you would accept as proof so all I can do is speculate.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join