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.

 

Operation: Destroy Ignorance: HAARP,Chem-Trails.

page: 6
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Why do chemtrail believers have such a hard time understanding what proof and evidence is?




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by metalholic
 


Extremely inconclusive stuff here, as always with the HAARPys...

I have no doubt at all, as the patents state, they'd love to use it to stop Russian missles, and for communications testing etc., but there's NO evidence (other than speculation, the HAARPys fave kind of "evidence") that this can be used to direct energy around he globe, to like Haiti.

The guy in the first vid, for example, talks about earthquakes, but only if he energy is directed into the earth... with HAARP here's no evidence it's capable of being focused down... so... no earthquakes...



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by metalholic

Originally posted by omegacorps
we know what harrp dose. ( what we are told ) but the side effects are unclear.


Certain advanced nations have been purposefully tampering with the atmosphere for some time now. Half a century ago their method of choice was the use of atomic weapons (4), but since then their arsenal has grown in sophistication to include the 'injection of chemical vapors and heating or charging via electromagnetic radiation or particle beams'. In a 1996 US Air Force review of the subject, it was emphasized that 'many techniques to modify the upper atmosphere have been successfully demonstrated experimentally' (5).


lofi.forum.physorg.com...
edit on 4-3-2012 by omegacorps because: (no reason given)


Well if we know what HAARP does why do we still have government officials proclaiming it doesn't exist.

Why do we have other members on here chadwickus,phage proclaiming neither HAARP nor Chem-Trails exist.

I remember arguing with phage in another thread about how HAARP could be used in warfare as how can it be proved that someone attacked you with a earthquake or hurricane.

And that's your response for something as serious as weather control warfare? Never mind the side effects on the planet and the people it could be used for for beneficiary reasons huh?


The names you quoted are entities that pop up to defend the status quo time and time again. Why are those names revered here on ats I cant understand.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Why does it have to be HAARP?
Why use something disclosed to the public?

What about the weather machines we don't get to hear about?

Seems the argument is/was too specified on whether one particular device is capable of causing an earthquake - when we all know the United Nations has some really cool (or hot in this case) toys that the public never hears about.

As far as I am concerned, anything disclosed to the peasants is 30 years old, if not 100.

And with chemtrails, I am assuming it got it's name from "Chemicals" - which remind me of the agent orange spraying on the West coast of the U.S - but there's nothing to see there.

Whether or not chemtrails can augment the weather is something I find difficult to grasp - but I wouldn't put it passed these decrepit power addicts to poison a few towns/major cities in the good name of (occult) Science.

As far as the human beings go on this planet, I feel we need to be spending less time focusing on this "Us vs Them" achetype. After all, it's what "they" want....



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by omegacorps
 


Makes logical sense based on its location and proximity to Russia...

But at the end of the day only the Airforce or Military with TS clearance and above working there at a high level knows the truth. Even those of us serving know very little about advanced US military technology...

Sniper



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
HAARP is always good for a chortle on these boards. Seemingly earthquakes stopped becoming natural as soon as HAARP was brought online - all quakes are now caused by HAARP. And somehow, when it costs the government billions of dollars in research and many years of intensive studies to create weapons or device with a singular purpose, they seemingly created a SUPER weapon / device, that can: create tornadoes, cause hurricanes, level buildings, create holograms, mind-control, create global warming, cause earthquakes, even crop circles! That's some weapon!


The logic behind HAARP is as bad as logic behind belief in chemtrails. I suppose it's no surprise the two have come together to join forces in new ridiculous theories.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by omegacorps
 


Wrong.


cloud seeding = chemtrails

any dumping of any chemical into the atmosphere is chem-trails.


Don't try to pretend that you don't know what the commonly-used term "chemtrails" actually refers to.

This is an tactic of diversion that should be beneath the level of an intellectual discussion. Word games, here. And you know it.


"Chemtrails" do not exist. Cloud seeding does NOT make a "chemtrail". A "chemtrail" is defined by the ignorant few who 'believe' in them (and are merely seeing normal contrails) as "long-lasting white lines in the sky that spread to sometimes cover large portions of the sky."

And there, what they see are normal contrails that were formed in conditions that allow them to persist, and because of the conditions even more cirrus cloud are formed. It is a natural process at that point -- the presence of the contrails acts as a trigger, and spurs additional cloud formation. To be perfectly accurate, the passage of the airplane was the initial trigger. In that sense, it was "artificial"....but, triggers that spur clouds to form happen in Nature too, all by themselves.


When "cloud seeding" is being conducted....there are NO "trails". Cloud seeding is done in ways that it cannot even be seen from the ground....not only because of location and technique, but also the very nature of the materials used....they do NOT make a "trail".

Video to illustrate actual cloud seeding:



@0:25 and @1:40, watch when the camera is pointed at the wingtip. That cannister device, with the flame coming out the rear, is dispensing the silver iodide. As you see, it is done below the cloud, and the intent is updrafts will then carry the nucleic particles into the cloud, where water vapor can condense, and then hopefully produce rain. It isn't always effective, doesn't always work. An inexact science.

Here's a different set-up, on a different (much nicer) airplane:



Again, those are flares. They burn, like a firework, to produce the material used in "cloud seeding".

Not a "chemtrail". But you know this, don't you?



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


You are the one playing word games, face it,, your planes can and WILL be used for nefarious purposes as ANY OTHER DAM THING.

I love the fact that you believe everything in your industry is on the up and up, great for you.

When i look around at the people who are sick FAR more often when these "CON-trails" spread there sticky mix all around i want to "re-arrange your face".

The amazing amount of energy you put into trying to convince people that these are just normal, EVERYTHING is normal...is incredible.

Fight or Flight !! Both in this case .



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


Huh??



your planes can and WILL be used for nefarious purposes as ANY OTHER DAM THING.



Jet airliners are being used for "nefarious purposes"?? Got the evidence for that claim??

Do you even have a definition, at all, for "nefarious purposes"? Or, are you just blowing smoke?



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by guavas


Maybe this could be the reason that the "nuts" think it does those things.

Please note the DoD source.


Oh it certainly is - cherry picking a quite out of htere is a favourite HARRPY tactic - here it is:


The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.


The whole thing is about the threat posed by false scares - everything highlighted in that paragraph is categorised as a false scare that could be used to terrorise populations - including all the HAARPy favourites at hte bottom.




And just maybe a smattering of this thing also.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


Huh??



your planes can and WILL be used for nefarious purposes as ANY OTHER DAM THING.



Jet airliners are being used for "nefarious purposes"?? Got the evidence for that claim??

Do you even have a definition, at all, for "nefarious purposes"? Or, are you just blowing smoke?


Speculation: Military possibly

I see you're getting your dopamine fix for today. Cheers

edit on 6-3-2012 by mojo2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I have read that paragraph a hundred times to make sure I was reading it right, and never saw what you bolded. That frightens me - as I don't even HAVE a bias one way or the other. I keep an open mind on this this kind of stuff, and I don't rarely, if ever, trust any information that makes a definitive claim one way or the other.

But I could point out that the biological weapons part is anything but a false scare, because I...well "think" we blew up a bunch of biological material over in Iraq, which is theorized as being the cause behind GWS.

Anyway, my motto is, the louder a proponent gets about any issue, the less and less believable they are.

Thanks for pointing it out. I love eating crow first thing in the morning.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by guavas
 


lol - good on you tho.

The whole thing is talking about any false scare - all a terrorist group has to do is claim they have a weapon somewhere populated and it would cause all sorts of chaos even tho the weapon never existed at all - that is a form of attack too.

Actually I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mojo2012
 


I wasn't asking you, but for clarity:

I specifically asked the other member to address the "nefarious purposes" posed by commercial jet airliners. Your response?:


Speculation: Military possibly



OK. Well away from the original need for clarification request....so, now the onus is on you, as you seem to have taken up the mantle:

Proof?

Evidence?

And, just what does "Military possibly" as a form of speculation actually mean??

You see, the way it works, here, is not to simply do a 'drive-by' post, with nothing but a vague nothing. It is to make a salient point, and then back that up with a source for validity.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by mojo2012
 


I specifically asked the other member to address the "nefarious purposes" posed by commercial jet airliners. Your response?:


Speculation: Military possibly



OK. Well away from the original need for clarification request....so, now the onus is on you, as you seem to have taken up the mantle:

Proof?

Evidence?


Even before that, where did he actually answer about what the nefarious purpose is??

Being military is not the same as being nefarious!



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by metalholic
 


I have to ask, did you actually watch the last two videos? Did you listen to what was said?
This was a program talking about the conspiracy angle to Haarp. There was no proof given, only opinions.
Much like most of the chemtrail threads.

I like conspiracies too, and I enjoy these kinds of programs, but they are entertainment. Watch the ones on Nessie, and Bigfoot, and Champ. They all have very interesting theories, and they try to bring as much evidence as they can, but in reality, if they had any real evidence, it would no longer be a theory, it would be a fact.

None of that is to say Haarp cannot be what you claimed it to be, only that your video's have come no closer to proving anything than has been done int he past.

Chemtrails are the result of paranoia. The fear of clouds has gotten so bad that people actually think they are being sprayed on a daily basis. This kind of fear is very unhealthy. And it's pitifully sad that so much information exists to explain contrails and weather, yet the fear mongers refuse to accept it. It's science and not up for debate.


I'm using this account as an example for all the contrailers. Including you Aloy!

Vapor trails are formed only under certain
atmospheric conditions and create a visible atmospheric wake similar to a boat propeller in
water and usually dissipate very rapidly. Chaff and flares produce unique smoke patterns that
are visibly different than a contrail but have the same color and appearance as a cloud but
which also typically dissipates very quickly. Aerial spraying for pest or weed control and fire
suppression are the only Air Force activities which involve aircraft intentionally spraying
chemical compounds (insecticides, herbicides, fire retardants, oil dispersants).

www.af.mil...

If you are attentive to contrail formation and duration, you will notice that they can rapidly dissipate or spread horizontally into an extensive thin cirrus layer. How long a contrail remains intact, depends on the humidity structure and winds of the upper troposphere. If the atmosphere is near saturation, the contrail may exist for sometime. On the other hand, if the atmosphere is dry then as the contrail mixes with the environment it dissipates. Contrails are a concern in climate studies as increased jet aircraft traffic may result in an increase in cloud cover. It has been estimated that in certain heavy air-traffic corridors, cloud cover has increased by as much as 20%. An increase in cloud amount changes the region's radiation balance.

cimss.ssec.wisc.edu...

This video is not what people are reporting. Nor news stations for that matter.




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Why do chemtrail believers have such a hard time understanding what proof and evidence is?


Vapor trails are formed only under certain
atmospheric conditions and create a visible atmospheric wake similar to a boat propeller in
water and usually dissipate very rapidly. Chaff and flares produce unique smoke patterns that
are visibly different than a contrail but have the same color and appearance as a cloud but
which also typically dissipates very quickly. Aerial spraying for pest or weed control and fire
suppression are the only Air Force activities which involve aircraft intentionally spraying
chemical compounds (insecticides, herbicides, fire retardants, oil dispersants).

www.af.mil...

If you are attentive to contrail formation and duration, you will notice that they can rapidly dissipate or spread horizontally into an extensive thin cirrus layer. How long a contrail remains intact, depends on the humidity structure and winds of the upper troposphere. If the atmosphere is near saturation, the contrail may exist for sometime. On the other hand, if the atmosphere is dry then as the contrail mixes with the environment it dissipates. Contrails are a concern in climate studies as increased jet aircraft traffic may result in an increase in cloud cover. It has been estimated that in certain heavy air-traffic corridors, cloud cover has increased by as much as 20%. An increase in cloud amount changes the region's radiation balance.

cimss.ssec.wisc.edu...

This video is not what people are reporting. Nor news stations for that matter.




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by metalholic

Start at 1:50 and watch from their! News report proving chemtrails starts at 3:00 - 4:05. Reports say the toxic level of barium is more then 3 times the level set by the EPA.



But nothing is going on!



Ha ha - you've been conned....well not actually conned...but are the victim of an error by the reporter.

the level isn't actually 3 times he EPA limit at all - it is only 1/30th the limit, as explained here - micrograms per litre, as per the lab report shown, are parts per billion in a litre (which is 1000 millilitres of course) - the EPA limit is 2 parts per million - which is 2000 parts per billion - so the reported level of about 68 micro-grams per litre is only about 1/30th of that.

And here's how that strontium barium niobate (SBN) hologram will work..maybe...I'd be interested in how you think this relates to chemtrails, since of course SBN is there as a fairly sizeable crystal -


The dimensions of the photorefractive storage crystal used in this study were 20 x 20 x 1.3 mm.
(page 5)



contrailscience.com...

Your source is another forum. Therefore Source busted!



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalholic

contrailscience.com...

Your source is another forum. Therefore Source busted!



the original video video shows a piece of paper showing a figure of 68 micrograms of barium per liter - true or false?

The voice over for the video says this is 6.8 parts per million - true or false?

A microgram per liter is not actually a part-per-million - it is a part per billion - true or false?

The EPA limit is 2 parts mer million - true or false?

68 parts per billion is not 3 times the EAP limit - it is actually approximately 1/30th of the EPA limit - true or false?

I'll give you a hint: True, true, true, true, true.

And it is true regardless of where that is published, or who says it.

It is verifiable, checkable, falsifiable, and..ta da...true.

See that is how "true" works - I guess it is a difficult concept for you to comprehend, but you really should try harder - it works much better than pushing hoaxes.
edit on 6-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


And here is well-illustrated the problem.

This "chemtrail" hoax originated in the USA. Here, we (as a general population) are woefully unfamiliar with the Metric System.

Ironically, it is far, far easier to use, since it is based on multiples of ten. I get so sick of converting pounds to ounces, (weight measures) and then trying to remember how many fluid ounces (different units, same word) in a cup, or a quart, gallon, etc.

Don't get me started on teaspoons / tablespoons, and how many per cup!


So, the "chemtrail" hoax starts in the USA, then that laughably wrong interpretation of the parts-per-million / parts-per-billion fiasco is aired on, again.....a TV station in the USA.

We had a chance to convert to Metric back in the 1970s. What a shame.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join