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.

 

Fox News Chemtrail Propaganda

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


OK, so what.....your opinion (only, you have no proof) that he's a "paid debunker", just because he is a UFO skeptic??

There are a LOT of perfectly sane, honest and reasonable people who also are skeptical of UFOs (in terms of them being actively visiting alien beings in spaceships) because there is, as yet, not a lick of evidence......and there are SO many hoaxes out there, it is damn well smart to be skeptical, until solid proof exists.

You don't have to be on a "payroll" to have common sense and a functioning, reasoning brain.

SO, "Bill Nye" is out then.

Fine. There are hundreds, thousands of other scientists all over the world who can be contacted about the so-called "chemtrails" and if they are polite, and don't just laugh in your face, then they may supply the same answers as are supplied here on ATS in these oh, so many threads.....




posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 





So you pick and choose what/who to believe.


Pretty sure most everyone is guilty of that.

The fact that it was on Fox News (a massive news organization owned by Rupert) would be enough for me to not trust what they say.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 





So you pick and choose what/who to believe.


Pretty sure most everyone is guilty of that.

Yes, we all do. But what is your basis for picking and choosing what to believe?

EDIT TO ADD:
Do you research the facts presented by both sides of an issue equally, or do you tend to ignore the facts that go against your pre-conceived notions?




The fact that it was on Fox News (a massive news organization owned by Rupert) would be enough for me to not trust what they say.

Yet you trust the fact that Fox News was indicating that contrails are chemtrails, and chemtrails are part of cloud seeding.

Again, how can you cherry-pick what you believe on Fox news (or any news -- or any source, for that matter)?


edit on 1/10/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Usually when someone wants to adamantly convince you that something does not exist .......it means the topic in question probably does exist.


Most of all ..... I am biased because I have seen plenty in the sky to know something is up.

What that "something" is? We don't know yet.




Yet you trust the fact that Fox News was indicating that contrails are chemtrails, and chemtrails are part of cloud seeding. Again, how can you cherry-pick what you believe on Fox news (or any news -- or any source, for that matter)?


I have a personal belief in Chemtrails. So yes, I call them chemtrails.

No man .... you're missing the whole point of my thread ..... I am indicating that Fox News used propaganda concerning the trails.

That's all I am saying.... is that it's propaganda .....are chemtrails apart of cloud seeding? Maybe, maybe not


edit on 10-1-2012 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Usually when someone wants to adamantly convince you that something does not exist .......it means the topic in question probably does exist.

Exactly, There are plenty of people who are adamant about the fact that persistent contrails do not exist.



Most of all ..... I am biased because I have seen plenty in the sky to know something is up.

You have seen plenty of what in the sky?

I have seem plenty of persistent trails -- Trails that criss-cross in a grid pattern.. Trails that can last for hours and spread out into a haze that can create an overcast sky.

I have seen these things, too. However, I also know that those things can very well be normal jet contrails.



edit on 1/10/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by Urantia1111
Oh you got me good there tiger! I'm sure its just my faulty memory, but I'm talking about the quality of these trails, not really the quantity. Why is it so important to you that people disregard this chemtrail idea as pure fiction?


...And what quality would that be?


That quality, Debunker #2, would be that which allows the entire sky to be covered with a nigh permenant and ever expanding haze of junk that turns a would be clear sunny day into a partly cloudy day in a completely manmade fashion.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Urantia1111
 



Why is it so important to you that people disregard this chemtrail idea as pure fiction?


Because it is pure fiction.

It also, as a demonstrably fictitious belief, causes damage by wasting people's time and effort...."worrying" about something that isn't even happening, when there are a lot of other legitimate concerns to "worry" over.

If you want to better understand why the jet contrails look differently than they did 20-30 years ago, then go out and do some studying up about high bypass turbofan engines, and compare them to the older, and just about nowhere-in-use today, low bypass types of turbofan engines.


And, in terms of the way the contrails form, you will also see why there are similarities in some ways to the big, heavy bombers of World War 2, and their contrails.

It has to do with airflow patterns that surround and envelope the hot, humid exhaust gases.....the old propeller engines had BIG propellers....and modern high bypass turbofan jet engines also have a type of "propeller" out front, supplying the majority of the engine's thrust, and pushing a LOT of air....cooler, ambient temperature air.....aft and around the central core of hot gases.


Thank you Dr. Contrail/ Debunker #3. I'm just not buying any of the above. Temperature, humidity. I think that's an all too convenient way to explain away what anyone who looks up can clearly see. I fail to see how burning of kerosene in the atmosphere could/would go from a quickly dissapating/evaporating trail to a miles long permenant cloud that blocks out the sun 5 days a week. That's an improvment in jet engine tech??? Nah.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Urantia1111
 


Hardly "permenant", the cirrus clouds that form, or are spurred and induced to spread, by the activity of the airplanes.

This is a fact of our technology, and desire for rapid and convenient travel by air. As long as oil is expensive, and petroleum-based fuels are the "go-to" thing for our machines, we're going to see contrails, and persistent contrails and the associated cirrus clouds, whenever the atmospheric conditions are "ripe" for them to form.

It doesn't happen every day, of course. And, it certainly is not 'permanent'.


Here's an idea.....keep a journal, noting each day, at the same times (multiple times per day) your observed sky conditions. Do this for a significant length of time, longer the better, to see the reality for yourself.

Often, our memories play tricks on us......and on those days when we are most "bothered" by extensive contrails and high cirrus clouds, we remember them more vividly, and wrongly attribute them as having occurred much more frequently than in reality.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Urantia1111
 



I fail to see how burning of kerosene in the atmosphere could/would go from a quickly dissapating/evaporating trail to a miles long permenant cloud that blocks out the sun 5 days a week.


For every pound of kerosene in Jet A1 fuel burned, it produces at least one pound of water.

The heat of combustion inside the engines is around 1,800°C to 2,000°C (over 3,000° Fahrenheit).

This is hot enough to break down many molecular bonds, and the free atoms re-arrange to form other compounds....H2O being one of them.

Look at this graphic, supplied by SwissAir.....(They use "tonnes", and kilograms, metric measures....but you get the idea):




Sorry, but the science is clear on this. Check it out, and you can learn a lot out there. The "chemtrail" believers, and their sites, don't want to be "bothered" by science, nor reality........so you don't see their sites discussing facts and science, just beliefs and rubbish claims. Often, blatant hoaxes, faked photos used as so-called "proof", or just misunderstood normal things being claimed as "something else".

IF there were huge fleets of airplanes "spraying" at 30,000 feet and above, there would be evidence by now. Photos, personal stories, at least something!

SO far?

Big fat ZERO.....



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Late to the party here. But that was clearly stock footage of contrails.

You don't get stock footage of cloud seeding from the ground, because it just looks like a tiny little plane flying in a cloud.
edit on 10-1-2012 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
Late to the party here. But that was clearly stock footage of contrails.

You don't get stock footage of cloud seeding from the ground, because it just looks like a tiny little plane flying in a cloud.
edit on 10-1-2012 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)


I think the OP's point here (which I do not agree with) is that Fox News intentionally showed us high-altitude trails (what he calls chemtrails) during that news story about cloud seeding to desensitize the masses to the realities of chemtrails as a form of weather modification.

Basically, I think the OP was saying the producer of that segment is "in the know/part of the secret club" concerning secretive weather modification via the use of high-altitude planes, and his/her inclusion of that video file was simply to prepare the rest of us so we are more likely to accept the alleged spraying.



edit on 1/10/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

The least probable is Poisoning all of us (even though negative side-effects might occur)
edit on 10-1-2012 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)


I agree as well. Poisoning less likely but LOL side-effects may occur LOL

Possibly metalic particles adjusted or heated with HARRP or some other type device... to what end though? I get a weapon against other countries but serves no purpose on hitting our own.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

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


Really? Like you cannot tell the difference? You must either live in some Magic Land that never sees these airborne abominations, or you never go outside and look up.

[snip]


Chemtrails are very real, and very distinguishable from contrails. Chemtrails don't evaporate, contrails do.


Well one of th chemntrail guru's disagrees with you. Michael J Murphy, creator of "What in the world are they spraying" says that persistent contrail do exist, there is no visual difference between chemtrails and contrails, and you have to chemically test them to tell which is which.

I'll guess you haven't you chemically tested any to figure the difference?



Perhaps you could go along to his next meeting or appearance & discuss it with him??
edit on 10-1-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Does it really matter what it looks like when they do it or how they do it? The fact is they are doing it. Are we going to sit here and debate contrail vs chemtrail when it doesnt really matter how they do it? the fact is they are doing it. When the pro contrail people see stuff like this they start grasping for straws about the nature of contrails what they look like what altitude crap like that. I could care less what cloud seeding looks like or how they do it. The fact is its real and been real for some time. Korea fires missles from the back of flatbed trucks at the clouds for their version of cloud seeding. So it doesnt really matter what it looks like because their are many deployment methods. The deployment method is the least of your worries LOL.
edit on 10-1-2012 by Foxy1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Foxy1
 



The fact is they are doing it.


"they"?? Doing "what"?



the fact is they are doing it.


Doing "what"?



Are we going to sit here and debate contrail vs chemtrail when it doesnt really matter how where or when they do it?


Yes, "they" fly jet airliners and make contrails. SO, yes it really does "matter" when people run all over the Internet with false claims promoting a hoax and con-job.....that of the non-existent "chemtrails".



I could care less what cloud seeding looks like or how they do it. The fact is its real and been real for some time.


Well, actually "caring" what cloud seeding actually looks like is key to understanding that a jet airplane contrail has NOTHING to do with cloud seeding.

Period.

And yes, real cloud seeding has been in use for a long time. There are great debates as to its effectiveness, though.



Korea fires missles from the back of flatbed trucks at the clouds for their version of cloud seeding.


Yes, as has been noted countless times in these threads, there are several methods for cloud seeding, and one method involves ground-based equipment. Its effectiveness is also not well proven, in terms of its track record of success.



So it doesnt really matter what it looks like because their are many deployment methods.


If you refer to cloud seeding, well again, see above ^ ^ ^. Trying to point at a contrail and calling that "cloud seeding" is just plain wrong....and ignorant of the facts and reality of actual methods used in cloud seeding.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


They doing what you ask? this is a thread where its whole conversation is based off a fox news story about cloudseeding...or am I on the wrong thread?
it seems you take great importance over millions of people debating contrail vs chemtrail. Well I dont care about the differences between a contrail and a chemtrail like millions of people do. The reason I dont care is videos like this, they explain to people that cloud seeding is real. So what freaking difference does it matter what the process looks like? or how effective it is or what country do I have to point to for evidence? Do I really need to do all that because millions of people are still talking about contrail vs chemtrail? what is there to talk about? we know cloud seeding is real so why even bother talking about this trail or that trail?



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foxy1
Does it really matter what it looks like when they do it or how they do it?


I'd say its pretty much essential, otherwise you are asking everyone to be convinced by hearsay (not necessarily you personally, but I hope you get my drift)


The fact is they are doing it


But are they? Really? Every attempt to show 'they' are doing it has been proven to be either a lie or a mistake, so the only reason we have to show that something we all know can be done, is being done, is someone claiming it. When that claim is allso accompanied by an explanation that 'contrails disappear quickly' which one knows to be utterly wrong, then its not a very convincing claim at all.


When the pro contrail people see stuff like this they start grasping for straws about the nature of contrails what they look like what altitude crap like that.


That someone can even think that a scientifically factual explanation about the nature of contrails is 'grasping at straws' is just another nail in the coffin of chemtrail theory. You cannot make a convincing case around a blatant and transparent falsehood. Of course it is entirely possible that you (or any other pro chemtrailer) genuinely don't know it is a falsehood, which is fair enough. But equally, if you dont understand the basics of the atmosphere, why would your claims about whats happening in it be at all credible?


I could care less what cloud seeding looks like or how they do it. The fact is its real and been real for some time.


Ah, now yes! I absolutely agree with that. You are correct. However, cloud seeding is very different to chemtrailing, as has been covered many times on threads you just may not have seen of course.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foxy1
reply to post by ProudBird
 


........ this is a thread where its whole conversation is based off a fox news story about cloudseeding...or am I on the wrong thread?
it seems you take great importance over millions of people debating contrail vs chemtrail. Well I dont care about the differences between a contrail and a chemtrail like millions of people do.


It would appear that you also don't care about the difference between con/chemtrails and cloud seeding, which is a shame as its a rather massive difference.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foxy1
Does it really matter what it looks like when they do it or how they do it?


Since the "evidence" that "they" are "doing it" at all amounts to some trails lasting longer than others, they yes, being able to distinguish those trails is extremely important.

And since the chemtrail gurus are now beginning to backtrack on hte previously held error that contrails can't last a long time that must, necessarily, through that "evidence" into doubt.


The fact is they are doing it.


The fact is that the "fact" thy are doing it has never been established.

Now the "fact" that contrails can last a long time is being realised by chemtrail gurus because they know they cannot keep lying about it any more - too many unfortunate people who have fallen for the hoax are waking up to realise that hte "evidnce" they have been sold on is just hogwash.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
its like we are sitting here arguing what kind of knife the baker used to cut off a piece of bread to poison the king.




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join