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.

 

If you don’t believe in chemtrails why are you here?

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





Not blue skies, bluer skies...permanently. He's not talking about clouds. Where are the bluer skies? Where are the spectacular sunsets?


Well the only real way to respond to that is.....

Where is the evidence that shows the Atmosphere of our Planet Earth would be "bluer?"



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtap66
Why am I here? Because "chemtrails" don't make up the totality of this website. It's one of many, many topics.

I think chemtrails are bunk. You apparently don't. That's where it ends.

Why all the hostility?

Summed it up right there.


I have often wondered if beLIEvers in chemtrails feel different or odd -- out of place, and think, "It must be that evil hidden powers are trying to poison us all, including Themselves!"

Jumping to the most melodramatic unrealistic conclusion they can, so that they have something to blame for how they feel, yet also claim powerlessness to be able to do anything about it.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 

In the paper from Teller. You know, the guy talked about here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The guy often used as evidence that "chemtrails" are geoengineering in action? So he's wrong about the visual effects but right about the other stuff? See, there's one of those puzzle pieces that won't quite fit. It needs some twisting, some pounding. Or you could just toss it out because you can't find a place for it. Either way the jigsaw fails.

edit on 1/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 

Yeah, that is it.
All of those people, like me, that come to ATS and bring links that you don't read...
WE are the ones that are delusional.
Perhaps delusion can work another way. Perhaps you can be delusional by being content with a safe but naive view of the world around you.
After all, I see nothing from you that addresses anything that has been presented. Yes, it is easy to claim it is all bunk.
Next!



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


I can see you all have been holding onto false truths for so long now you actually believe your own myths on contrails.
No one has yet proven the contrails are not chemical trails, why, because they are chemical trails are they not? Is there not chemicals coming from the hoax contrails?

With all that science and still no one has come forth with a single peice of proof that the hoax contrails don't contain chemicals whatsoever.

Debunked for ever.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by killemall
 


Are you wanting to discuss semantics, or facts about contrails and "chemtrails"?



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





Either way the jigsaw fails.


I see. So the glass is half empty.

I tend to have more of an outlook of.... we aren't finished putting the jigsaw together. Given enough time and teamwork, and I am sure the puzzle can be completed.


Also, I haven't ever really used Teller's stuff as proof of anything.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 

Yeah, that is it.
All of those people, like me, that come to ATS and bring links that you don't read...
WE are the ones that are delusional.
Perhaps delusion can work another way. Perhaps you can be delusional by being content with a safe but naive view of the world around you.
After all, I see nothing from you that addresses anything that has been presented. Yes, it is easy to claim it is all bunk.
Next!


I read the links unless they are the same ones repeated again and again.

None have made the case with solid fact or proof.

Not naive here, I know plenty of "evil" is in the world enacting all sorts of "evil" plans, but "chemtrails" are misinterpretation (sometimes intentionally it seems) of the Facts are just another way to spread fear and paranoia.
edit on 1/3/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


I see. So the glass is half empty.
Well that's quite a mixed metaphor (with a jigsaw puzzle). But no, the glass is dead empty and the puzzle doesn't come together at all.


I didn't say anything about Teller being used as proof. He is used as a piece of evidence (in this very thread). A piece which doesn't fit. Maybe you should point out to your fellow researchers that he's not such a good piece of evidence.
edit on 1/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


If only that was the truth (fear and propaganda) we would really have nothing to worry about but, You guys and your support for nasty hoax chemical contrails have allot to answer for and most likely will pay for the rotten crimes against humanity one day, I pray.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by killemall
 





With all that science and still no one has come forth with a single piece of proof that the hoax contrails don't contain chemicals whatsoever.


YOU are an amalgamation of chemicals. The food you eat is chemicals. What you crap is chemicals. What you smell when you crap is chemicals.

"Chemtrailers" espouse that there is a nefarious or "hidden" substance being sprayed upon the public (in random, and hugely diluted) emissions from aircraft purposely put there to infect or poison the whole of the Earth.

Contrails exist. It is proven, obviously.

"Chemtrailing" the world is not proven unless imagination and paranoia and youtube are considered as "proof".

edit on 1/3/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by killemall
 


Are you wanting to discuss semantics, or facts about contrails and "chemtrails"?


Been there done that so has many others. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I thought it was spot on.


You are being a pessimist and saying the puzzle will "fail." I'm surprised you actually are willing to concede that there is indeed a "puzzle" to be solved.

Or are you not. That means there is no puzzle.

And that is where we disagree. There is a puzzle, and not every trail in the sky is made up of mere water vapor.


edit on 3-1-2012 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)


time for dinner

edit on 3-1-2012 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


There is a puzzle, and not every trail in the sky is mere water vapor.

On that we do agree. Contrails are not water vapor, water vapor is not visible.. They are water ice. That's the visible part, there are of course combustion products.

edit on 1/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 


My point was that the argument you've made doesn't make sense. You cite Carnicom's work in support of your point, but much of what he publishes is totally inconsistent with what you're arguing. You haven't responded to any of the arguments I've made except to tell me that you don't think I'm interested in the truth, presumably because I disagree with you.



You cited examples of people that have reported Morgellon Disease symptoms for much longer than this chemtrail phenomenon could have ever existed. Carnicom found a link, fibers, that apparently cause similar symptoms to occur in people.


Carnicom doesn't claim to have just found a link, he thinks he has discovered a new organism that cannot be classified in any of the currently accepted domains of life, and that this organism causes Morgellons disease. He believes the organism may have been genetically engineered, and he believes it is being dispersed in the atmosphere by aerosol. He doesn't say anything about this novel organism causing symptoms "similar" to Morgellans, he claims definitively that the organism which he discovered is the cause of Morgellons disease.

Selections from his work:



As such, it appears that we are dealing with an "organism" that transcends the structural existence that has been defined for life itself. The Morgellons condition appears, by the best information and analysis to date, to be an orchestrated synthesis that crosses the lines of the three established Domains of life on this planet. It is very difficult to envision, at this state of knowledge, that this "organism" (for the sake of discussion) is the result of any "natural" or "evolutionary" process. This hypothesis, if accepted, forces us to consider the very real prospect of deliberate and willful indulgence in the arena of genetic engineering.




The filaments have been shown to contain (and continue to do so with this report) complex internal structures and biological components. These environmentally dispersed filaments have been shown to have a high degree of similarity and correlation with those that are characteristic of the so-called "Morgellons" condition. Human samples of filaments representative of the "Morgellons" condition have been cultured extensively, and they continue to show the same level of similarity with the enviromental samples that are disclosed here.




This conclusion is that the nature of a repeatedly occurring environmental filament sample is identical in nature to that filament entity which is representative and characteristic of the "Morgellons" condition. This equality in nature has now been established unequivocally through three different methods: visually, metrically, and analytically.




A substantial body of research has accumulated to make the case that the underlying organism (i.e., pathogen) of the so-called "Morgellons" condition, as identified by this researcher...


So, my objection was reasonable. Carnicom claims to have discovered a novel organism (that doesn't fit into the current classification system for life on Earth...) which is the cause of Morgellons disease. He believes that this organism is dispersed in the atmosphere, and that the United States government is somehow responsible. You identify this as a compelling case for chemtrails. This can't be true though, because Morgellons disease has been reported for hundreds of years. Morgellons is probably a psychiatric ailment, but it's at conceivable at least that the underlying cause actually is an organism. It's even conceivable - though exceedingly unlikely - that Carnicom discovered the organism responsible for Morgellons disease. It's inconceivable, however, that the organism - the filaments, the focus of Carnicom's work - are evidence for chemtrails. First of all, if it were literally raining undiscovered organisms that would totally rewrite the tree of life and revolutionize our classification system, someone else would notice. Second of all, because Morgellons has been around for hundreds of years, we know chemtrails are not the cause of it. Even if the organism Carnicom claims to have discovered is the cause, finding it in the environment couldn't possibly be taken as evidence of chemtrails because it must have been present in the environment for at least as long as Morgellons has existed, which means it was around long before airplanes.

The most generous interpretation of Carnicom's work is that he has discovered the organism that causes Morgellons disease. He found it in rainwater, so it exists in the environment, and must have for hundreds of years. How does that point to chemtrails?

What about the geo-engineering stuff you started in with? Do you think chemtrails are reflectice particles to prevent global warming or genetically engineered organisms?



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


The link you quote in order to disprove chemtrails:

www.osti.gov...

appears to be addressing dielectrics (nonconductors) - sulphates (sulphuric acid salt) - volcano type spew...when it suggests bluer skies and spectacular twilights. These observational effects are mentioned not because of any ability to predict but because of several volcanos and the effects that were observed. This method, however, is deemed costly whereas metals are more cost effective. No observational effects with metals or with the 3rd option (resonators at lagrange points) are discussed. I'm not going to quote from the article because I didn't find it that readable and the options it discussed are elsewhere talked about in a far more understandable format. Further, volcanic aerosols, according to this abstract don't get up as high as this proposal is stating. Further even than that, these...aerosol dielectrics...are the least efficient scatterers, according to this paper, of the three.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I have asked this before, and in fact many other members have said the same thing. And I am sure you already know what is coming,right? Why has none of these so called chemtrail gurus ever went up and took an air sample to find out what they think is up there? If a chemtrailer wants to stop from being debunked just show the scientific evidence that they exist. And no looking up is not scientific evidence. Why do chemtrailers start a thread about the same tired subject and after 400 threads posted on this topic chemtrailers have yet to provide the evidence that has been asked to provide?


All we ask for is scientific evidence proving they exist, that can't be hard to do since there is so much evidence proving their existence, right? So get cracking all you chemtrailers and show all this new evidence that hasn't been seen and discussed or debunked before....



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





This method, however, is deemed costly whereas metals are more cost effective.


Maybe a little link there, so we can all enjoy this information?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join