Geoengineering - caught in the act?, page 9


Pages: <<  6    7    8    9    10    11    12  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 121 times


reply posted on 11-3-2012 @ 12:25 AM by Gmoneycricket
reply to post by pianopraze


Thanks for the post
It is more proof they are geoengineering!
Even if they believe they are not, made made clouds, is geoengineering!


reply posted on 11-3-2012 @ 12:44 AM by Gmoneycricket
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by pianopraze
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to
post by Afterthought


So give that the observed phenomena match something that is known, and his attempts to show they can't possibly be that are incorrect, the answer to the thread title question is obvious:

Nope.


Prove it.


You are the one claiming that aircraft are conducting geoengineering - I am pointing out that you have no actual evidence of that, and that what you saw matches known chemtrail behaviour.

so how about you prove it, since you are the one claiming something is happening?

I gave all the pertinent data, Those contrails could not have formed by the planes on the radar, besides there were a great many more than were listed on the radar, the pics prove that also.


Rubbish - the pics show a couple of handfuls of planes, which is entirely consistent with the computer plot.

All I hear from your camp is denial.


Again rubbish - you have had a great deal more analysis offered than you yourself gave - all you have done is said "planes in the sky = geoengineering?" - without even bothering to count how many!!


A portion of those reading will fall for the trap, those that want to be secure in their beliefs... the mainstream media does the same thing night after night. Those that want to look at the data will see a different picture.


Those that actually look at data see you have none for your case.

edit on 10-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


You sir have never been able to disprove that airplanes make,
man made clouds!
And you have never proved that man made clouds, are good or bad for us.
All you have done is, explain how an airplane makes, man made clouds.
Its time for you to prove they are just harmless water vapor clouds.
Maybe you could take samples, have them tested, prove they are harmless.
We will wait for the test results, get back to us with 3rd party unbiased test results.


reply posted on 11-3-2012 @ 01:25 AM by jlm912
I have to say I'm on the fence when it comes to the geoengineering subject. Beautiful shots, though, OP, and well done on the documentation in whole.

I must educate myself more on the subject before I can say I lean one way or the other, but...
To the disbelievers: is it not possible that the government is pursuing such activity behind closed doors? If these are government planes, is it not possible that fuel-additives could exist and are to blame for these prolonged trails? Do we have anyone here in the ATS community that has a connection that, or maybe they, themselves, works in the production of the jet fuel utilized by the government who could say one way or the other? Even then, if this is "classified" information, could you really trust said sources?

On another note, as an analogy, so please don't jump my bones for being off-topic, but isn't there an absence of "direct" physical proof of gravity? There's enough "supporting" evidence to reveal it as more than likely a fact of reality, though, right?

So to the inquisitive minds, I say find that supporting evidence seeing as there's a mountain of difficulty obtaining direct evidence. I've seen no direct evidence one way or the other, but both sides of the argument make sense. Regardless, reality doesn't always have to make sense, correct?

I have indeed seen evidence of geoengineering development research that would include the use of spraying chemicals or metals when put in use. I also understand that there are many common individuals that would more than likely be terrified by the thought of the government conducting such activity, so it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they're keeping it under wraps. If they are, though, I have trouble believing it is with ill-intent.

Finally, to all, proclaiming something that is unproven as truth and to then completely write off a new, opposing idea (and it's supportive evidence) is the definition of "close-minded," which, without the cold-hard facts behind your claim is close-minded ignorance. The motto here is "deny ignorance," is it not? I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean to be ignorant and in denial....


reply posted on 11-3-2012 @ 03:25 AM by crackerjack
reply to post by pianopraze



Mate, S+F for sticking to your guns and not letting the thread be derailed by the local cutting crew like so many great threads are, you're in good hands now Viceroy Zorgon has thrown his weight in.

You're giving them cold hard facts and data which they cannot refute, you took the time and actually backed your photos up with data which is now becoming quite rare on ATS, I think the cutting crew may have bitten themselves into cold hard facts, tastes bitter right ?
edit on 11-3-2012 by crackerjack because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 11-3-2012 @ 03:29 AM by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze


Can you verify that you were in the area around Wayland/Lackey/Mousie?
www.abovetopsecret.com...


reply posted on 11-3-2012 @ 03:59 AM by Mandrakerealmz
reply to post by tommyjo



From your over use of the dumb eye thing I guess your trolling because your ignorant? For some reason you don't believe in this issue?

Trust in your government aye? Eyes wide shut this one


reply posted on 11-3-2012 @ 04:47 AM by FreedomCommander
reply to post by pianopraze



I see that they don't even bother with the middle states, just the ones that are the most moist. Now why is that?

My opinion, the chemicals that are sprayed are only effective in moist areas. Those areas that are dry, the chemicals will most likely stay up in the air or will dissipate and be blown away somewhere else.

To there is a safer way to do geoengineering, and that is through ZPE Cloud-buster technology. Simple, and easy to handle. It's mainly a point and shoot. Know the stuff and you can make anything turn from bad to good in a short time.

Thank you for this post on their crude version of Geoengineering.


reply posted on 11-3-2012 @ 05:24 AM by Curious and Concerned
reply to post by Captain Beyond


Originally posted by Captain Beyond
Nice post pianopraze! I see our main disinformation agent is trying to muddy the waters yet again! I have added a link with some factual information on this subject. It talks about patents for spraying devices and etc, and their purposes. Again, nice post!

theintelhub.com...
theintelhub.com...

I'm sorry but those links provide very little factual information regarding what they claim to be chemtrails. They do however, have a whole lot of speculation, and some downright lies. Take for example, this quote from your second link.
Contrails are unaduIterated and typically disappear within 2 minutes while chemtrails can linger for hours.

This is simply not true, as scientists have long understood that given the right conditions, a contrail can persist for hours. I'm sure most "chemtrail" proponents such as The Intel Hub are well aware of this, but choose to ignore it to suck in more people who don't bother to research their claims. They use this false information to speculate that geoengineering projects that could occur are actually occuring right now. I find it rather hypocritical that you label others disinfo agents while promoting this misleading information.

This contrail fact sheet contains some pretty good information, but there is plenty more out there if you can be bothered to look.
If the humidity is high (greater than that needed for ice condensation to occur), the contrail will be persistent. Newly formed ice particles will continue to grow in size by taking water from the surrounding atmosphere. The resulting line-shaped contrail extends for large distances behind an aircraft. Persistent contrails can last for hours while growing to several kilometers in width and 200 to 400 meters in height.


Regarding the OP, I think you have some great photos and a fairly well documented case. But one thing I am a little concerned about is where you state "The ones that were not making the spreading contrails show on the radar, the ones that were making the spreading contrails are not shown. " How can you be certain that none of the planes on the flightaware screen grab are producing contrails? There seem to be at least a few on there that could have produced some of the ones in your pics, although I'm not sure exactly what kind of time frame the radar is compared to your photos and the exact location. It just seems like a bit of a leap to claim that none of them were making contrails.

In saying that, I commend you for taking the time and effort to post this thread. Cheers


reply posted on 11-3-2012 @ 10:54 AM by Katharos62191
reply to post by pianopraze



pianopraze,
This is a great thread. Thank you for your pictures! I have been wanting to do this for a while now, I am happy you beat me to it. I will pass this one on! I hate to know that you can be standing outside, any of us, admiring the sky for it to be criss-crossed in front of our own eyes!! This is a very informative and well written post!
Star & Flag!


reply posted on 11-3-2012 @ 11:09 AM by Afterthought
reply to post by MorkandMindy



Thanks for posting that pic because now I can use it to draw attention to the blue light that's just to the upper left of the center of the photo.
Is that Venus, a star, etc.?
edit on 11-3-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-3-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 11-3-2012 @ 11:16 AM by Chadwickus
reply to post by Afterthought



Lens flare.

...or Nubiru if you're that way inclined...


reply posted on 11-3-2012 @ 11:19 AM by Chadwickus
reply to post by Curious and Concerned




But one thing I am a little concerned about is where you state "The ones that were not making the spreading contrails show on the radar, the ones that were making the spreading contrails are not shown." How can you be certain that none of the planes on the flightaware screen grab are producing contrails?


I'll second that question, without identifying the specific aircraft from the ground, there's no way of knowing which is which with so many in the same piece of space at the same time.
Pages: <<  6    7    8    9    10    11    12  >>    ^^TOP^^



NOAA Doc Strong Evidence They Are and Have Been Spraying Us
  Posted 15 days ago with 36 member flags
Chemtrail Programs Only Cost Us $5 Billion a Year
  Posted 5 days ago with 8 member flags
Cost analysis of aerosol solar radiation management published
  Posted 11 days ago with 6 member flags
How do elites escape chemtrails?
  Posted 1 days ago with 5 member flags
ChemTrails over Michigan
  Posted 11 days ago with 3 member flags
Geo-engineering (Chemtrails) and Bible Prophecy
  Posted 15 days ago with 2 member flags