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.
Originally posted by lastword
reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog
how do i know hese a time travler?
just one possible explanation, perhaps you could check with your 'handler'?edit on 13-10-2012 by lastword because: i added something to my 'one liner'
heres a great chemtrail video its very real
A pilot shots a chemical plane from his cockpit: the video shows an aircraft that spread chemtrails over Canada from the nozzles. The footage is the irrefutable proof of a chemical and clandestine operation that a bold pilot offers to the public in order to demonstrate that chemtrails are real.
This is the original unadulterated video that started all the fuss. It is completely authentic and no camera tricks were used. It is simply a couple of KC-10's in formation and the audio you hear is just us poking fun at all the "chemtrail" conspiratorists. I knew when I shot the video that this would be catnip for all the conspiratorists out there. Yeah, the contrails have an odd way of "starting" and "stopping" but that is easily explained with physics. It's no different than the lenticular clouds that form over a mountain or the fog that flows from an open freezer. So, stop being so gullible, kids. There are truely bad things in the world but this isn't one of them!
originally posted by: Uncinus
Chemtrail believers claim that persistent contrails are a new thing, and they call the persistent trails "chemtrails". They also claims [sic] that contrails don't last a long time, and they certainly don't spread out and cause cirrus clouds and overcast skies. They also claim the chemtrails started in the late 1990s.
And yet, here's an issue of Popular Science, from 1969, 43 years ago...
So if contrails did this 43 years ago...Why the mantra of "contrails fade away, chemtrails persist and spread"? Clearly contrails quite frequently persist and spread, at least according to the science of 43 years ago.
originally posted by: Petros312
4. The fact that persistent contrails were noticed as early as 1969 does not mean the sheer amount of persistent contrails observed today do not pose a serious hazard.
5. The fact that persistent contrails were phenomenon that scientists were aware of even as early as 1969 is no evidence whatsoever that scientists, corporations, or the government and military would never think of experimenting and using this method to disperse either a)many more persistent contrails, or b) contrails that have an altered chemical composition, for whatever purposes they deem fit, including geoengineering, even to the extent that there is a negative impact on the public's health.
originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: Petros312
... saying it does not do so is just another form of argument from ignorance - tryingto shift the burden of proof to make people prove things don't exist.
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
Fine, but do you have any hard evidence that they do pose a serious hazard and that governments are experimenting and using contrails as a cover story for those experiments?
I mean, the evil "PTB" could be putting drugs in my Oreo Cookies that make me more susceptible to mind control, that doesn't mean that they are.
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
I mean, the evil "PTB" could be putting drugs in my Oreo Cookies that make me more susceptible to mind control, that doesn't mean that they are.
originally posted by: Petros312
I stuck to the topic of this thread, which is that chemtrail conspiracy theorists who believe that jet exhaust never expanded into cirrus clouds until about 1990 are wrong. What I pointed out is the LIMITATIONS of using the evidence presented (a magazine article from 1969) and what it can or cannot tell you. Of course, this leads to anti-conspiracy theorists to pounce accusing me of providing either a) no evidence of chemtrail conspiracy, and now b) a logical fallacy even though I pointed out the logical fallacy already presented.
1. The fact that persistent contrails were noticed 43 years ago says nothing about the chemical constituents of the jet exhaust then or now.
2. The fact that Popular Science indicates why persistent contrails could be observed in 1969 does not mean what you see in the sky similarly spreading out is the same exact phenomenon.
3. The fact that persistent contrails could be observed and explained in 1969 does nothing to "debunk" that there can be additional chemicals being sprayed along with the jet exhaust 43 years later.
4. The fact that persistent contrails were noticed as early as 1969 does not mean the sheer amount of persistent contrails observed today do not pose a serious hazard.
5. The fact that persistent contrails were phenomenon that scientists were aware of even as early as 1969 is no evidence whatsoever that scientists, corporations, or the government and military would never think of experimenting and using this method to disperse either a)many more persistent contrails, or b) contrails that have an altered chemical composition, for whatever purposes they deem fit, including geoengineering, even to the extent that there is a negative impact on the public's health.
I stuck to the topic of the thread.