Is this the REAL reason for chemtrails?

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


You said they are not spraying any chemicals at all. You said you were 100% sure. Even press releases for the public admit they are spraying chemicals. The issue then becomes, what are they spraying and are those chemicals harmful to us in any way. The government says nah... no worries.. we know what we are doing... not a problem...don't worry about it. If you want to blindly agree with the official government press releases (that EVERYONE that uses a brain cell, knows seldom if ever is truthful), then fine. *shrugs
The part when you told me about laws that must be followed made me giggle just enough to spit alittle coffee on my blouse




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScatterBrain
reply to post by defcon5
 


You said they are not spraying any chemicals at all. You said you were 100% sure. Even press releases for the public admit they are spraying chemicals.


No press releases concerning lasting contrail "spraying" have been issued.
You do not believe the gov't, but now you lay your reliance on "press releases"....ghost ones at that.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScatterBrain
reply to post by defcon5
 


You said they are not spraying any chemicals at all. You said you were 100% sure. Even press releases for the public admit they are spraying chemicals.


what press releases?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by EyeDontKnow
 


Darling, Just like the way we can give children vaccines by a nasal spray we can deliver chemicals in any area we choose. It is used in warfare, and there are experiments being done in the sky above us. That simple, Anyone could look this stuff up, they just need to have the patience to read a lot of documents.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ScatterBrain
 

What stuff should I look-up ?
experiments in the sky ?
Why should I look it up, if it's already there ?
Where is it?
edit on 7-6-2012 by EyeDontKnow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by EyeDontKnow
 


Hi EyeDon'tKnow,

When I first starting trying to figure out if the chemicals being sprayed was the cause of my concerns, I did the typical google search, Youtube..etc. Rosalind Peterson Lead me into more information. She was investigating atmospheric testing and weather modification. She was a crop loss adjustor, before she retired. It made sense to me that if it was her job to figure out what causes crop loss, she would be a credible source for further study into my concerns.
I can't send private messages yet, I am new to ATS. But, if you look this lady up, it will get you started. It took awhile but I am a curious person so I took what I got from this lady and because I didn't understand much of the mechanics of what was being explained, I just kept breaking down each part I didn't understand until I grasped the concept of what was being done. My last post was my conclusion from all the stuff I read.

I listed a few keywords for you, some might not make sense or seem to fit at first... It took me awhile to understand what I was reading and well, I kept everything, even some of the not so important stuff that I read on the way. I was most interested in what chemicals were being used, the problems the project encountered, what was done or tested in this area, and well...I learned a lot more than I expected from reading about the problems with the experiments. So once I answered my original question, I just happened to learn more in the process. Good luck, it is way cool stuff


The field of nanomaterials science, C.A.R.E. Project--- Wayne Scales (Virginia Tech)
S.A.D.P. experiments, Mesoscale Variations of Tropospheric Aerosols* (Check through the reference materials here, cool stuff in there too)(THEODORE L. ANDERSON), NOAA/Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics, NASA Langley Research Center, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions (lots of cool info. here), Asian dust particles converted into aqueous droplets
under remote marine atmospheric conditions
Frontier Science Organization, Environmental and Symbiotic Sciences,
Prefectural University of Kumamoto, Kumamoto 862-8502, Japan
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1008235107

I'm not a very organized person, I hope you can sort through some that, it's very cool stuff.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   
I've yet to hear a rational explanation from anyone who believes in chemtrails as to how these aircraft get around rules that all other civilian, military, and even covert aircraft have to follow.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Yah well sorry you are stuck on that defcon5... Others might be reading your post and laughing. *shrugs



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ScatterBrain
 





Rosalind Peterson Lead me into more information. She was investigating atmospheric testing and weather modification. She was a crop loss adjustor, before she retired. It made sense to me that if it was her job to figure out what causes crop loss, she would be a credible source for further study into my concerns.


So this is who your gonna use as a source... Start at 2:00 mark and listen real close to what Mrs Peterson says then ask yourself if you want to actually believe someone who is clueless....



Enjoy......



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Poor representation of Rosalind Peterson. Surprises me that you would post such a poor video to counter the points of references I posted. Sweetheart, I don't care if you agree with me or not, I didn't make my conclusion by watching a couple videos, I did a little homework that lead me too my belief. Those points of references I posted earlier reveal that indeed many experiments are being done and for various purposes and with various effects. Shame on you for trying to make this woman out to be a nut case, she was good enough to work for the government buddy.




posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScatterBrain
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Poor representation of Rosalind Peterson. Surprises me that you would post such a poor video to counter the points of references I posted. Sweetheart, I don't care if you agree with me or not, I didn't make my conclusion by watching a couple videos, I did a little homework that lead me too my belief. Those points of references I posted earlier reveal that indeed many experiments are being done and for various purposes and with various effects.


those various references a couple of posts of yours ago -


The field of nanomaterials science, C.A.R.E. Project--- Wayne Scales (Virginia Tech)
S.A.D.P. experiments, Mesoscale Variations of Tropospheric Aerosols* (Check through the reference materials here, cool stuff in there too)(THEODORE L. ANDERSON), NOAA/Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics, NASA Langley Research Center, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions (lots of cool info. here), Asian dust particles converted into aqueous droplets
under remote marine atmospheric conditions
Frontier Science Organization, Environmental and Symbiotic Sciences,
Prefectural University of Kumamoto, Kumamoto 862-8502, Japan
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1008235107


Are they suppoed to show somethign to do with chemtrails??


they certainly show that "many experiments are being done and for various purposes and with various effects" - but in what way are they relevant to supposed current spraying?

Atmospheric aerosols hav been studied for decades - here's a google schollar search for articles from 1950-1960

do you understand what atmospheric aerosols actually are??

Here's a link to hte history page of the American Association for Aerosol Research - you may find it illuminating.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Yes, they are. As I stated a long with those keywords, I am not an organized person (and I stated as much in that post) but in there I found the information I needed to come to my conclusions. It would appear some of you people just challenge the way things are said without actually reading anything offered.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt: Say I spray you with pepper spray, I held the button way too long. You are effected. Say the wind carries that aerosol down the block and reaches a group of children standing at a bus stop. They are effected by this aerosol that has been sprayed and carried in the atmosphere. They don't see where it originated but all they know is something in the atmosphere has caused them to suffer. I know about it but I am not even going to admit it because I don't want any problems. On a mass scale their are experiments using our atmosphere and it's conditions as delivery models for chemicals that can benefit a people or harm a people... and sweetheart guess what we usually use this type of technologies for? warfare. Tie this with HAARP and imagine the possibilities. Further, with this understanding, you will find that all these stories of birds dropping out of the sky in a particular area, etc. etc. correspond more with the conclusion I came too rather than the "chalking it all up to a mystery" like the government and media choose to do.

edit on 11-6-2012 by ScatterBrain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by tennesseewatchdog
Interesting thoughts on the reason for Chemtrails. I have heard of the rason for spraying is depopulation,
failing at that hiding Planet X, weather modification, and now locating UFO,s. You may have something. There are metal fillings in the chemtrails .....


Have you found an actual chemcial analysis of a chemtrail somewhere?



Actually, there are plenty..they are just not referred to as chem-trails. Somewhere in this thread, please find a post that I listed a bunch of reference materials, you will find some there.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Since the chem are being sprayed at a low altitude I would not think it will effect the UFO that is flying past us in the high skies. Plus the UFO can materialize and dematerialize.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
They were chemtrailing yesterday over my house. While I cant make a decision based on the quality of the film. However I have always believed that the chem trails are for some sort of cloaking activity. IMO



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
What were they cloaking in 1905....before high-flying planes ?
Was that even possible to do so ??
Did you miss the video by Paul Williams, as linked above by truthsurfer ?....
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 11-6-2012 by EyeDontKnow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ScatterBrain
 


No let's not use analogies - let's use facts.

I read the abstracts & intro's of those papers - no not the whole things.

If you can't tell me why you think they are relevant then I am going to think you are not reading even that much of them.
edit on 11-6-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ScatterBrain
 


Well, I'm not "tsurfer".....but, having watched and listened enough to Ms. Peterson in RE: her ill-informed *beliefs* about so-called "chem-trails" (she is seriously deluded), and the fact that she bases most of those mis-guided *beliefs* on a very poor understanding of aviation in general, and the science of high altitude flight and contrails in particular.....:


Shame on you for trying to make this woman out to be a nut case, she was good enough to work for the government buddy.



She is a "nut case" on that topic.....irrespective of her other work in other realms of environmental studies.

In this "chem-trail" arena (a non-existent fantasy nothing, "chem-trails") she is indeed out of her league, and over her depth.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ScatterBrain
 





Poor representation of Rosalind Peterson. Surprises me that you would post such a poor video to counter the points of references I posted.


Actually I was showing you that she is not much of a credible source with the comments she made in that little video. Especially when she says persistent contrails must be new,because there would have been pictures taken of them and then you know what comes next,,, pictures low and behold we have these....







So if she is a serious investigator of chemtrails shouldn't she have known pictures like the ones above were available to look at?

Not real investigative if you ask me..



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by PluPerfect
 


I disagree with you. *Shrugs





top topics
 
12
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join