Nikola Aleksic: Stop Chemtrails or...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Cluck cluck cluck cluck.
Communicating ideas is a two way street. You have already demonstrated that the sign reads, ONE WAY.
You know that Gaul...the contrail science way.
Cluck cluck cluck cluck.

reply to post by SirClem


So is it that you can't tell us what these half truths are because you haven't found any, or that you won't tell us because you are hiding them from us??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Who is "us"?
Oh, yeah, I remember. Never mind.

reply to post by SirClem


It is all the people who read your assertions - whether chemmie or debunker.

come on clemmie - you said, and I quote "Visited the 'contrailscience' website. ABSOLUTE JUNK." (YOUR CAPITALS OF COURSE)...And since then you have persistently refused to say what is actually wrong on it.

Why are you hiding it?

Why don't you tell the world why contrail science is such junk?

The only reason I can think of is that you are delib erately trying to discredit the chemtrail movement by making claims, failing to back them up, and then coming back from time to time to make surethat everyone remembers that you are all talk and no walk.

That makes you a false flag operative!!

And it must be true because:

1/ I can imagine it, and
2/ False flag ops are always true when they get a mention on ATS!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul



I'm going to help out here and say that people don't revisit the contrail site because:

(a) It bears no resemblance to what is actually going on in the sky
(b) It is too long
(c) Persistent contrails are speculative at best and imaginary at worst

Originally posted by luxordelphi
I'm going to help out here and say that people don't revisit the contrail site because:

(a) It bears no resemblance to what is actually going on in the sky

I disagree. But in my part of the world, it's summer. Those "chemtrail" planes are either turning off their sprayers or every "chemtrail" ever seen here was a contrail, or maybe the conditions in the summer aren't nearly conducive for contrail formation?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
(b) It is too long

Take notes while you read, if you can't keep up.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
(c) Persistent contrails are speculative at best and imaginary at worst

Speculative? Read contrailscience for a better overall view of the science of persistent contrails, research into the subject has gone on for longer than the existence of the "chemtrail" conspiracy!

reply to post by luxordelphi

And, furthermore,
Contrail "science" and its cheerleaders don't really care what is going on in the skies.
I remember a few years ago sitting out watching the spraying, and the trails at that time spread out and actually drifted down into the neighborhood. Now, I have seen chemtrails NOT do that, just spread out really slowly until there is a haze in the atmosphere.
It is easy to tell a shill. They pretend to actually know that nothing is going on, while the world is waking up to what is going on.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

I'm going to help out here and say that people don't revisit the contrail site because:

Well that's very helpful of you - thanks.

But my conversation with SirClem was nothing to do with people revisiting the site.

it was about identifying what is on it that is junk or disinfo.

Perhaps you cold help him to identify some of that stuff??

(a) It bears no resemblance to what is actually going on in the sky

Presumably except for all those photos of aircraft andcontrails and clouds, and photos and videos of things that chemmies say are going on in our skies, and stuff liek that?

(b) It is too long

there's a lot of science in the sky!

But I tend to agree - the message system makes some of hte pages very long indeed.

But that has nothing to do with whethe or not the info at the top of each page is true/junk/disinfo.

(c) Persistent contrails are speculative at best and imaginary at worst

Really? And yet there's all this science out there saying that they do exist - and photos from as far back as WW2 of vast sheets of long lasting contrails from B-17's over Germany - or are you saying that the bombing campaign was actually about spraying Germany with barium & aluminium rather than high-explosives encased in steel??

Well apart from incendiaries of course - lots of them droped and they were, AFAIK, often aluminium because it burns so hot.....

So if "Persistent contrails are speculative at best and imaginary at worst" with massive amounts of evidence hat they do actually exist, how is it that yuo can claim that "chemtrails" are any better when there is no evidence for them at all??

reply to post by SirClem


So you still cannot refute any of the facts posted on contrailscience.com? I implore you to disprove -anything- on contrailscience, or correct any facts on the site, as does the owner.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul



The link you gave me for noctilucent clouds is for the same event on the same day as the one in my quote from absoluteastronomy.com. The link from wikipedia is also for this same sole event. This does not show NASA's openness nor does it in any way show that "NASA makes public announcements about them all the time..." This announcement was made because this launch was visible up and down the eastern seaboard. "The Rocket's exhaust plume was observed and reported to news organizations in the United States from New Jersey to Massachusetts."

My purpose in highlighting this event was in response to a link on iridescent clouds with the usual grab bag of natural, normal, rare yet normal, unusual yet natural etc. descriptions. Just as I've read many times from you that chemtrails and contrails can't be told apart, I'm tossing you back your same argument. Good for the goose; good for the gander. If you can create one artificial cloud, why stop there and who would stop there? And...how can you tell the difference? You can't.

Your last link, though entertaining and enjoyable, is irrelevant because it is from 1973. This is far outside the time frame for chemtrails as opposed to contrails; for natural clouds as opposed to artificial clouds; for normal atmospheric conditions as opposed to artificially created phenomena. Nikola Aleksic noticed this in 2006/2007. I noticed it in 2002/2003. Some dates go back to 1993.

reply to post by SirClem


It is true what you say about the world waking up. It was this thread from Serbia that prompted me to search out and learn that it's not just California taking these issues to court. A questioning populace may not be good for the program but I bet it's going to be excellent for the environment and our planet.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

The link you gave me for noctilucent clouds is for the same event on the same day as the one in my quote from absoluteastronomy.com. The link from wikipedia is also for this same sole event.

Err...yes....I knew that - it looked like you might like moer info about it.

This does not show NASA's openness nor does it in any way show that "NASA makes public announcements about them all the time..."

except perhaps the link I gave to the rocket launches in the 1960's shows they haven't ever been very secret??

Perhaps you could have done a little research yourself to see what NASA announces??

For example how about this page from the NASA sounding rocket website listing announcements for the last 2 years, and a couple of other documents dating back to 2003?

Perhaps if you search a bit more you might find some older stuff that could be of interest to you??

Your last link, though entertaining and enjoyable, is irrelevant because it is from 1973. This is far outside the time frame for chemtrails as opposed to contrails; for natural clouds as opposed to artificial clouds; for normal atmospheric conditions as opposed to artificially created phenomena. Nikola Aleksic noticed this in 2006/2007. I noticed it in 2002/2003. Some dates go back to 1993.

Rockets are completely irrelevant to chemtails as opposed to contrails in every shape or form - and always have been - including your interest in the one you posted.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Here you go take a gander at these..

www.pbs.org...

and this one

astrobiology.nasa.gov...

Please note that the originator of the links above are very credible, so enjoy the reading.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


Thx. Really enjoyed the NOVA article. Nice to hear that the U.K. is making efforts toward eliminating the trails. The NASA article gets an F for no facts and no tact and the usual unsophisticated denial.

reply to post by luxordelphi



so these aer not facts:

“The chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some contrails (condensation trails) are actually chemicals or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for a purpose undisclosed to the general public.

Well if it isnt' hat then what is it??

Versions of the chemtrail conspiracy theory circulating on the internet and radio talk shows theorize that the activity is directed by government officials.

Is this not actually happening then??

a result, federal agencies have received thousands of complaints from people who have demanded an explanation. The existence of chemtrails has been repeatedly

No questions have been asked and no denials issued??

The United States Air Force has stated that the theory is a hoax which "has been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications".

The USAF has not stated that it is a hoax?? It has not been investigated and refuted, etc??

Everyone has seen lots of airplane contrails, which are condensation of water vapor (formation of fog) that can be induced either by the exhaust from airplane jet engines or (under some conditions) by the compression and expansion of air as is passes over a plane wing. Depending on stratospheric conditions, a contrail can persist for only a few seconds up to many minutes after the plane passes over.

Ther's plenty of chemmies have stated tha they do think that contrails exist - are they wrong too??

A handful of conspiracy nuts have invented an evil interpretation of this common aspect of modern air travel, which has been circulating on the Internet since about 1996.

The rise of this hoax can be traced to 2-3 people -that's cerainly a handful. And it did start about 1996 - that is a fact. "Nuts" is a bit perjorative, but he goes on to explain why he thinks this -

I say “nuts” because it must take a strange mind to conclude without any credible evidence that this natural phenomenon is really part of an international government conspiracy to spray poisons into our atmosphere.

well thats clearly an opinion - a value judgement by the writer.

I happen to think he's quite right of course - and as far as value judements go there are acouple of facts in there supporting the conclusion - contrails are a natural, albeit artificial, phenomenon, and there is no credible evidence for the existence of chemtrails.

So I thnk you need a new marking template!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I know that you're not deliberately trying to annoy me but the link to all the rocket launches you gave me is interesting, I'll even say fascinating, but each segment has alot of byte and takes a long time to load and sampling just a few they are rocket launches and only rocket launches. The one I gave from Absolute Astronomy was a payload to create a cloud. I stand with my statement that NASA is not open and forthcoming in announcing their weather modification experiments. Maybe I'm supposed to infer from some of these rocket launches that there was clandestine cloud creation or weather experiment intent and that only the obvious rocket exhaust is listed on this massive byte website?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Regarding the NASA article - like I said it's drivel. It starts out by quoting Wikipedia. I really never thought I'd live to see the day that NASA would quote Wikipedia but it gets worse. Every other sentence is name calling. Unbelievable. The only upbeat part of the story is that they mention they've received thousands of complaints from people about chemtrails. I really didn't even know I could complain to them about it. I'm off to find a postage stamp.

reply to post by luxordelphi


There are 2 senteces with "name calling" - he says the people who started the chemtrail hoax are nuts, and he explains why.

Ther are more than 2 sentences in the article.

Why can't you discuss what is actually in it without exagerating and making emotive comments like this?

Why shouldn't he quoet wiki - it is as authoratative on the nature of het chemtrail hoax as anywher - would you rather NASA spent public money recording all eth myriad theories about chemtrails, the false evidence and bad science people have used to convince themselves that it is true?? :puz

Wiki ias as useful and as accurate as it is - so if there's something in it that is actually inaccurate why dont' you go about geting it changed?

Or at least tell us what it is that you think was wrong with the bits quoted??

As for NASA not being forthcoming about weather modification - what weather modification should it be forthcoming about?? Making noctilucent clouds at 170+ miles altitude?? Perhaps you would liek to explain how it is that those clouds affect eth weater??

the reasons for the launches are known - none of them have anythign to do with weather modification except that you have already decided that is what they are based on nothing more than your own desire for them to be that.

your last 2 posts demonstrate how bankrupt the chemtrail argument has become - a total inability to engage in rational discussion about even a limited amount of information, and classic staw man arguments - inventing something that doesn't exist and then complaining that no-one has said anything publically about it!!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


But if NASA started addressing "chemtrails", the "chemtrailers" would just write off everything they said as "disinfo".