Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A Challenge to Chemtrail Believers - Explain this 1969 Issue of Popular Science:

page: 3
63
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZombieJesus
reply to post by SpittinTruth
 





It's hotter today, than it was about a week ago. Matter of fact...it seems like my thermometer is stuck on 65 degrees.


I know you are fairly new here, but this has been covered time and time again.

The weather at ground level in no way, NO WAY reflects the weather at 30,000ft. +


I'm glad you ASSUME i'm "new" here. Don't let my few posts fool you. i've been on ATS for about 6 years now. Whatever you think you're gonna say....i've heard it all....a million times over. I'm familiar with the chemtrail debunkers...like Unicus and Proudbird. So, save your breath...and save ATS space on their servers.




posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by WiseThinker
Is the whole contrail vs chemtrail is but a distraction to the actual spraying of chemicals, keeping the movement from getting anywhere. im not denying the OP at all, im just not impressed with how its presented as a "Challange"


The problem is that the persistence of chemtrails vs. contrails is about 95% of the evidence for the theory that chemicals are being sprayed.

Take that away (as the Popular Science Article does), and what are you left with? Some aluminum in rainwater from dust, and "it sounds like something they would do".

So really I think that "contrails vs. chemtrails" directly addresses the heart of the matter. The promoters have no real evidence, so they desperately try to ignore this one issue.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by WiseThinker
 





Is the whole contrail vs chemtrail is but a distraction to the actual spraying of chemicals, keeping the movement from getting anywhere


If it is a distraction, I dont think it has anything to do with planes.

You want PROOF of chemicals being sprayed into our atmosphere you dont have to look any higher than ground level. Automobiles, industry (especially in China and India), hell, even motorcyles emit a massive amount of volatiles (respective to there volume and when compared to auto emsissions). Look at the effects of the eruption of Pinatubo and the amount of aerosols it emitted.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by WiseThinker
 





Lets be clear, i am in no way calling you a dis info agent, nor am i calling you a shill or troll, nor have i denied the stupidity of a part of the chemtrail movement (nor am i involved in that movement).


I wasn't saying that at all. I was generalizing the words that get tossed at us the debunkers by believers who don't like the fact someone else has a different view than they do



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by WiseThinker
Is the whole contrail vs chemtrail is but a distraction to the actual spraying of chemicals, keeping the movement from getting anywhere. im not denying the OP at all, im just not impressed with how its presented as a "Challange"


The problem is that the persistence of chemtrails vs. contrails is about 95% of the evidence for the theory that chemicals are being sprayed.

Take that away (as the Popular Science Article does), and what are you left with? Some aluminum in rainwater from dust, and "it sounds like something they would do".

So really I think that "contrails vs. chemtrails" directly addresses the heart of the matter. The promoters have no real evidence, so they desperately try to ignore this one issue.


I'll put it like this: PROOF is in the PUDDING! It's blatantly ADMITTED that chemicals ARE being used. Why you people keep saying they're NOT spraying, is beyond me? Either YOUR lying...or these so called "scientists" are giving us false information. It can't be both ways.

BTW, you do know chemicals were sprayed during the Vietnam War, right? Next topic....PLEASE!



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SpittinTruth
 





I'll put it like this: PROOF is in the PUDDING! It's blatantly ADMITTED that chemicals ARE being used.


Any links to this info,and what chemicals are they using?



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by SpittinTruth
 





I'll put it like this: PROOF is in the PUDDING! It's blatantly ADMITTED that chemicals ARE being used.


Any links to this info,and what chemicals are they using?


Yeah, i have a link...it's called DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK! Try the ATS search function...or even Yahoo/Google search. Oh, and to help ease the burden of having to go threw pages of non-sense...just ask the right question. Search features are AMAZING when you KNOW how to USE THEM PROPERLY!

PS....bring a flash light. The rabbit hole is PRETTY DEEP! You may want to bring extra batteries, also!


For such a debunker.....it looks like you got caught, with your pants down!



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinTruth

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by WiseThinker
Is the whole contrail vs chemtrail is but a distraction to the actual spraying of chemicals, keeping the movement from getting anywhere. im not denying the OP at all, im just not impressed with how its presented as a "Challange"


The problem is that the persistence of chemtrails vs. contrails is about 95% of the evidence for the theory that chemicals are being sprayed.

Take that away (as the Popular Science Article does), and what are you left with? Some aluminum in rainwater from dust, and "it sounds like something they would do".

So really I think that "contrails vs. chemtrails" directly addresses the heart of the matter. The promoters have no real evidence, so they desperately try to ignore this one issue.


I'll put it like this: PROOF is in the PUDDING! It's blatantly ADMITTED that chemicals ARE being used. Why you people keep saying they're NOT spraying, is beyond me? Either YOUR lying...or these so called "scientists" are giving us false information. It can't be both ways.

BTW, you do know chemicals were sprayed during the Vietnam War, right? Next topic....PLEASE!


In Vietnam, defoliants were sprayed from low level to clear the forest cover, and clouds were seeded for rain to try to degrade ground conditions. But nobody denies this. In the US pesticide is sprayed over urban areas from low flying planes, and clouds are seeded to increase rain. Again, nobody denies this.

But none of this looks anything like what people are calling chemtrails. None of this is secret. What people refer to as chemtrails is a secret high altitude spraying program that leaves long spreading white lines in the sky. That's what people deny. That's what the chemtrail promoters have no evidence of. That's what looks just like the contrails as described in the 1969 Popular Science article.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SpittinTruth
 


The defoilant operations in the Vietnam war have little in common with the modern day chemtrail conspiracies.

They put stuff in planes and sprayed it, that's it.

You brought it up so I'll ask you, have you ever seen pictures of the aircraft spraying agent orange during the VN war? What altitude do you think that were at? Do you think that the chemicals they were spraying formed persistent trails? Did those trails spread to form clouds?



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SpittinTruth
 





BTW, you do know chemicals were sprayed during the Vietnam War, right


Yes your right and here is what the used


Chemical weaponsIn 1961 and 62 the Kennedy administration authorized the use of chemical weapons to destroy vegetation and food crops in South Vietnam. Between 1961 and 1967 the US Air Force sprayed 12 million US gallons of concentrated herbicides, mainly Agent Orange (a dioxin) over 6 million acres (24,000 km²) of foliage, trees and food crops, affecting an estimated 13% of South Vietnam's land. In 1965, 42% of the herbicide used was allocated to food crops. The herbicide use was also intended to drive civilians into RVN-controlled areas.[2]


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by SpittinTruth

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by WiseThinker
Is the whole contrail vs chemtrail is but a distraction to the actual spraying of chemicals, keeping the movement from getting anywhere. im not denying the OP at all, im just not impressed with how its presented as a "Challange"


The problem is that the persistence of chemtrails vs. contrails is about 95% of the evidence for the theory that chemicals are being sprayed.

Take that away (as the Popular Science Article does), and what are you left with? Some aluminum in rainwater from dust, and "it sounds like something they would do".

So really I think that "contrails vs. chemtrails" directly addresses the heart of the matter. The promoters have no real evidence, so they desperately try to ignore this one issue.


I'll put it like this: PROOF is in the PUDDING! It's blatantly ADMITTED that chemicals ARE being used. Why you people keep saying they're NOT spraying, is beyond me? Either YOUR lying...or these so called "scientists" are giving us false information. It can't be both ways.

BTW, you do know chemicals were sprayed during the Vietnam War, right? Next topic....PLEASE!


In Vietnam, defoliants were sprayed from low level to clear the forest cover, and clouds were seeded for rain to try to degrade ground conditions. But nobody denies this. In the US pesticide is sprayed over urban areas from low flying planes, and clouds are seeded to increase rain. Again, nobody denies this.

But none of this looks anything like what people are calling chemtrails. None of this is secret. What people refer to as chemtrails is a secret high altitude spraying program that leaves long spreading white lines in the sky. That's what people deny. That's what the chemtrail promoters have no evidence of. That's what looks just like the contrails as described in the 1969 Popular Science article.


Enough with your "Popular Science" article crap! You act like that's the BIBLE. The same people that work for Rolling Stone, work for Popular Science. Why you people take these magazines like they're gospel, is beyond me???? But then, you want to say the BIBLE is just fictional. Maaaaaaaan, only God's creation could be so stupid.

DENY IGNORANCE???? Yeah....uhm, hmmm
When does that happen? Lately, it seems like IGNORANT is the thing to be!



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SpittinTruth
 





I'm glad you ASSUME i'm "new" here. Don't let my few posts fool you. i've been on ATS for about 6 years now. Whatever you think you're gonna say....i've heard it all....a million times over. I'm familiar with the chemtrail debunkers...like Unicus and Proudbird. So, save your breath...and save ATS space on their servers.


So the only thing that you can refute is the fact that you violate ATS' t&c by using multiple id's?

You have nothing to say about any of the tools provided to you in your quest of knowledge of weather?

All you can do is be an "keybord commando", namedrop 2 ATS members (which is also against the t&c) and rag on about how you know everything while offering nothing?

Why is it strange for the combustion of kerosene (jet fuel) to produce a persistent contrail, which is essentially a cloud, when a cloud is made of water?

What are the main by products of the combustion of kerosene?



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SpittinTruth
 


Telling people to 'do their own homework' is a good example of how ignorant and lazy some members are on here.

You should learn some manners, you're being addressed respectfully by people on this tread, this is a discussion forum not a soapbox for opinionated pups.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinTruth
Enough with your "Popular Science" article crap! You act like that's the BIBLE. The same people that work for Rolling Stone, work for Popular Science. Why you people take these magazines like they're gospel, is beyond me????


Well, do you think the article is true or false? If it's false then why do you think that?



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SpittinTruth
 





It's blatantly ADMITTED that chemicals ARE being used.


What chemicals and by who?

Surely a 6 year ATS veteran who has heard every single aspect of the "chemtrail" theory 1 million times, and knows what everyone is going to say before they even think it, would have no problem citing a source



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Just to add fuel to the fire:


Dow Chemical Co. and Monsanto Co., the two largest makers of the chemical named after the color of its containers, were among the more than 20 firms named in the suit, the official said.


Funny thing that Monsanto would be involved, no? All just a coinky-dink, right?

Perhaps, i should go back to sleep. Being awake, is painful!

ETA: Agent Orange Suit Against Dow Co and Monsanto Co
edit on 18-7-2012 by SpittinTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SpittinTruth
 


I think you miss the premise of asking you for a link.

You see when one party(such as yourself) posts info in this forum without a link another poster(such as myself) will ask to see said link to show proof of what you are saying or it is looked at as something you just made up in your own world.

So how about that link....



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZombieJesus
reply to post by SpittinTruth
 





It's blatantly ADMITTED that chemicals ARE being used.


What chemicals and by who?

Surely a 6 year ATS veteran who has heard every single aspect of the "chemtrail" theory 1 million times, and knows what everyone is going to say before they even think it, would have no problem citing a source


Again, i say....it's on you...to make me a believer. IT's not on me to make you one. I don't care if you don't believe "chemtrails"/"geo-engineering"/weather manipulation/weather warfare, is real. It is what it is. YOU have to wake up, to those FACTS by RESEARCHING them.....for YOURSELF.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SpittinTruth
 





For such a debunker.....it looks like you got caught, with your pants down!


And how is it that I got caught with my pants down?

Well if you say so....
edit on 18-7-2012 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinTruth


Enough with your "Popular Science" article crap! You act like that's the BIBLE. The same people that work for Rolling Stone, work for Popular Science. Why you people take these magazines like they're gospel, is beyond me???? But then, you want to say the BIBLE is just fictional. Maaaaaaaan, only God's creation could be so stupid.

DENY IGNORANCE???? Yeah....uhm, hmmm
When does that happen? Lately, it seems like IGNORANT is the thing to be!




I'd say a great many things are beyond your capabilities of comprehension.

You have yet to provide any sources to back up your claims.





new topics




 
63
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join