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.

 

Nikola Aleksic: Stop Chemtrails or...

page: 15
39
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


How funny
your sources are all from the western mainstream NOT TO BE Trusted.




posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





None of which shows that chemtrails exist.


actaully they do exist.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by megabytz
 


You say they do not exist, yet your kind has never shown proof that they ARE regular contrails.

How unfortunate for you that you cannot prove your argument but yet expect us to be able to fly into the clouds and get access to all the records of what goes into each and every plane.

I hate these trails fervently, no matter WHAT they are and it amazes me that it is considered "Normal" by you nutters lol.

Stop defending these ugly pieces of garbage in the sky, and join the "Let us eliminate this pollution" crowd.

Since these trails began with a passion in the late 90's i have YET to see the 90% of stars i used too see since these trails have added so magnificently an almost PERFECT and NORMAL haze to the skies.


edit on 18-8-2011 by GrinchNoMore because: missed word



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





None of which shows that chemtrails exist.


actaully they do exist.


You seem very sure of that - so I expect you will ahve some good evidence to support such a solid conclusion.

Please feel free to share it!



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





None of which shows that chemtrails exist.


actaully they do exist.

Wow, you can't even spell actually and you expect me to take your word for it?
Since you have the audacity to make such a claim, I would expect you to have the extraordinary evidence to back it up. Got any?



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I didn't answer it because it is irrelevant - I had asked where debunkers said the 1950's/60s experiments didn't happen - look at your original claim


There's you're problem. I never specifically stated debunkers denied the 1950/60s trials. What I said was..


Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Many debubkers like to claim there has never been any proof that chemicals have ever been secretly sprayed over populations. LAC & Dew2 debunk that claim.

I am not claiming that the spraying from LAC&Dew2 exactly fits the description of current chemtrail theory, just that the procedure of spraying chemicals by aircraft, against the population, has been done.


My meaning was debunkers use blanket statements such as....


Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
And of course the chemtrail theory remains completley without evidence to support its existence, whether you call it geo-engineering or not, and so believers continue to take a pasting in the logic and rationality stakes.


In my opinion, LAC & Dew2 are very good evidence to support the existence of chemtrails. You're opinion may differ but its no better than mine.

You're next response was...


Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I've never heard a debunker claim there have never been any chemical sprays ever. The experiments from the 50's & 60's are pertty well known - and of course there's always Agent Orange too!


To which my reply was...


Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Feel free to look through this Thread if it means that much to you.

A couple well know debunkers here questioned my credibility when they claimed my linked info on LAC and Dew2 was done by ships instead of aircraft. If its soo well known why was my credibility questioned?


Pay attention to the bold. Do you see me saying they are denying the trials? Or was I asking if they are soo well known, why this obvious confusion from some respected debunkers?


Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
However I will answer this question you have asked because it is relatively simple - as far as I can see the credibility issue in the thread you linked to appears to have been in regard to whether or not the aerial sprays at the time would have looked like contrails or not. Sorry you couldn't figure that out and had to go blow it all up by mistake.


There you are wrong again, just as you wrongly interpreted my posts. I don't even have to argue this becuase anyone could read the thread and see that you are wrong. Sorry you couldn't figure all this out for yourself and had to go blow it all up by mistake.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by megabytz
 


You say they do not exist, yet your kind has never shown proof that they ARE regular contrails.


Not proof - no - proof is a matter of acceptance of evidence - except in mathematics and logic!!


And ther is a great deal of good EVIDENCE to say they are regular contrails, and there is NO good evidence they are anything else.

these trails:

1/ look like contrails
2/ are made in the sort of circumstances you expect contrails to be made (from engine exhaust mainly, at cold temperatures which usually means high altitudes, as far as can be determined at high humidity)
3/ they behave in ways we know contrails can behave (some last a short time, some a long timde, they can sometimes spread out into quiet large clouds)


How unfortunate for you that you cannot prove your argument but yet expect us to be able to fly into the clouds and get access to all the records of what goes into each and every plane.


People have flown into contrails and tested their composition and how and why they have been made, and there AER reports on such activities -

eg Old vs new engines
contrail occurrence and persistence from the IPCC

as just a couple of examples of the very considerable amount of scientific study that has gone one.

Is ther anything comparable for chemtrails??



I hate these trails fervently, no matter WHAT they are and it amazes me that it is considered "Normal" by you nutters lol.


They are "normal" because they are caused by physics - sometimes when you crak open a bottle of soft drink you get a "cloud" formed insise the ullage at het top - that's pretty much the same principle.

I think a lot of people think that "normal" means debunkers don't realise they are artificial - but they are clearly artificial and indeed some literature refers to contrails that spread as "induced clouds".

Calling people nutters for knowing how teh atmosphere works is a bit daft!



Stop defending these ugly pieces of garbage in the sky, and join the "Let us eliminate this pollution" crowd.


but the chemtrail meme isn't about polution - it is about some nefarious activity to do something MORE than what pollution does!

I think debunkers are mostly quite against pollution too - I can even think of 1 who doesn't like contrails for exactly the same reasons you don't - they look ugly, etc!!

But he or she recognises that they are "just" contrails, and nothing more and so is also happy to debunk the chemtrail hoax as well as not like contrails!


Since these trails began with a passion in the late 90's


Have a look here - www.abovetopsecret.com...


i have YET to see the 90% of stars i used too see since these trails have added so magnificently an almost PERFECT and NORMAL haze to the skies.


Yet I can see many photos on Flikr of blue skieswithout contrails in them from all around the world, I can go to MODIS (pick a subset area on the left)and see huge areas of the earth's atmosphere that have no appreciable clouds in them



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 



There's you're problem. I never specifically stated debunkers denied the 1950/60s trials. What I said was..


Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Many debubkers like to claim there has never been any proof that chemicals have ever been secretly sprayed over populations. LAC & Dew2 debunk that claim


Huh??

you think that the bolded bit isnt' you claiming that "debunkers denied the 1950/60s trials"??

And you say I am misreading something??


you were caught out - and the original wasn't even all that important so you could have jsut given a mumbled half-hearted retraction & it would all have died - instead you have made yourself look like a total nincompoop! (not a word I get to use often - thanks for the opportunity!)

I am in awe of your ability to "condemn" youself with your own "defence"! well done sir!

edit on 18-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: get quotes right



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
You say they do not exist, yet your kind has never shown proof that they ARE regular contrails...

That's like saying that a person needs to prove that a quacking, waddling, web-footed, flat-billed water fowl is a duck before you believe it is a duck, and really isn't a pigeon disguised as a duck.

The characteristics of a contrail are known. If a trail exhibits all of the characteristics of a contrail, why should there be any reason to believe it is NOT a contrail?



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by Essan
 


How funny
your sources are all from the western mainstream NOT TO BE Trusted.


So tell me which bits of western mainstream information you don't trust?

How TV works?

The computer you wrote on?

Iphones?

Aircraft??

How do you select which bits to trust and which not??



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by Essan
 


How funny
your sources are all from the western mainstream NOT TO BE Trusted.

There have been at least two videos from the western mainstream posted by chemtrail believers on this thread as evidence that chemtrails are real...

...so are you saying those videos should not be trusted based solely on the fact that they come from western mainstream sources?

Or do you trust THOSE particular western mainstream videos because they agree with your preconceived notions?

Personally, I don't automatically dismiss the validity of something just because of where it comes from or just because its message may not be in agreement with what I believe. I'll listen to the message and judge it on the merits of that message or the logical arguments it puts forth, even if my beliefs don't match it.

I have actually had my beliefs changed in the past because I wasn't so stubborn as to automatically dismiss or ignore the other side of an issue.



edit on 8/18/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Noone cares about contrails and what is "Known" about them... we want them gone, we are tired of excuses for the biggest eyesore in world history.

Now if you could explain how suddenly about 20% of the population that actually notices things saw these trails change, get much larger, last far longer, and change in shapes and sizes that had not been seen before.

And the fact that meteorology is pathetic at best at telling us about weather, let us not believe the claims so easily.

We just do not believe the bull# that is spouted so often, and we want something DONE about them, not defended by official story parrots.... For Crying Out Loud.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


So would you prefer that airplanes fly below the altitude where contrails can form? Because that would be incredibly fuel inefficient, and cause serious pollution problems.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 

There may be more trails today than ever before, but that could be explained by the fact that there are more airline flights now than ever before.

However, the actual trails themselves have not changed over the years. There are many reports/studies/photographs of long-lasting, wide-spreading contrails from the past several decades (actually, the trails may have changed due to more efficient jet engines producing greater compression).

I mentioned before in other threads that I grew up in a rural are in the early 1970s, and I remember the farmers on the TV farm reports lamenting the fact that the jet age has brought with it many more cloudy days due to the artificial overcast caused by long-lasting contrails that last for hours and spread out to form clouds. I clearly remember this because I was always interested in aviation and aerospace whole growing up, so I took notice of these comments.

So I can't speak for the memories of others, but my personal recollection is that contrails persisted in the past, and could last for hours, and could spread out to form cirrus clouds. Perhaps some other people weren't as interested as I was in aerospace/aviation, so they never really remember (or cared about) these farmers complaining about the persistent and spreading contrails.


edit on 8/18/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Nikola Aleksic mentions in the transcript of his video that the spraying started in Serbia after Serbia signed on to the Partnership for Peace treaty in Dec. 14, 2006. This was done at the NATO summit which took place in Riga, Latvia that year.

Cyprus, which another poster mentioned earlier as a holdout on spraying, is not a member of the Partnership for Peace treaty.

The Partnership for Peace treaty seems to be a stepping stone for NATO membership. And if Nikola Aleksic is right, it seems to be a signal to spray.

I couldn't find a translation of his earlier Codex Alimentarius speech but this organization is as concerned with the safety of food as they are with free trade and global standards. This may be the point where GMO's will enter Serbia. Hungary, who recently threw Monsanto out of their country, is not a member of the Partnership for Peace treaty although they are a member of NATO and are also a member of the European Union.

Maybe the Partnership for Peace treaty is a probationary period to get the spraying and GMO's accepted while waving the carrot stick of NATO and EU membership.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi

The Partnership for Peace treaty seems to be a stepping stone for NATO membership. And if Nikola Aleksic is right, it seems to be a signal to spray.

.....snip....

Maybe the Partnership for Peace treaty is a probationary period to get the spraying and GMO's accepted while waving the carrot stick of NATO and EU membership.


Seems unlikely, since "chemtrails" are reported all alround hte world as fa away as New Zealand , Australia, South Africa, Argentina, and even China.....and AFAIK none of them have any part in the Partnership for Peace treaty or NATO??
edit on 18-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Noone cares about contrails and what is "Known" about them... we want them gone, we are tired of excuses for the biggest eyesore in world history.


How much more are you prepared to pay for air travel??

it's pure economics - jets are much more fuel efficient at high altitude, and I'm prety sure fly faster too - so flying lower means longer flights and more fuel used - hence more pollution and higher airfares and airfreight costs.


Now if you could explain how suddenly about 20% of the population that actually notices things saw these trails change, get much larger, last far longer, and change in shapes and sizes that had not been seen before.


Here you go - hope that helps




And the fact that meteorology is pathetic at best at telling us about weather, let us not believe the claims so easily.

We just do not believe the bull# that is spouted so often


Nor even the science that tells you what is going on - remember that he motto of this place is DENY IGNORANCE?? So your first sentence above isn't all that encouraging....


, and we want something DONE about them, not defended by official story parrots.... For Crying Out Loud.


Simple - regulate airlines to fly at non contrail altitudes - and pay the price that it involves in terms of increased costs and pollution.

But whining about a non-existant programme to poison the world or amplify HAARP or whatever isn't really going to help the cause much!
edit on 18-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
The music in this video makes me sincerely sad.

When I think about all the time I wasted being angry.

All the times I felt humiliated in front of strangers because I could not control myself well enough not to approach them and ultimately scare them about 'ChemTrails'.

All the times I scared my friends and family.

It makes me sad.

Watch this video. The presenter of this video goes so far as to claim that a hidden hand is behind all, ALL, governments in the world and that they are somehow controlling this spraying.

How crazy does this have to get?

While very real issues truly do threaten us.




posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I have to disagree because Nikola Aleksic specifically mentions 2006 as the demarcation line between spraying and not spraying and because Cyprus has refused the spraying. These are countries in a specific geographical area central to the airspaces of other countries that did experience spraying. They belong to a certain rung in the global hierarchy.

It would be interesting to do a survey of countries globally and ask when spraying was first noticed.

For each country there also has to be a point where there were no GMO's and then there were. Someone in authority agreed just like the White House under Clinton agreed to GMO's for the U.S.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   
WOW
i cant believe this is still going



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join