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.

 

So Maybe There ARE Chemtrails...

page: 42
72
<< 39  40  41    43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 

Actually, I went on a four hour hike with my daughter yesterday. To a waterfall. The water was really cold and I didn't go in but she did. Via rope swing. It was a great day.




posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Next post.

edit on 11-3-2013 by fireyaguns because: Last few lines did not load, please see next post.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by ParasuvO
 





Contrail enthusiasts are an odd bunch, they appear to have no problem with them covering the skies and blotting out the sky all over the planet.


They are an odd bunch indeed.

The amount of time they spend posting in these threads leads me to the understanding that they have absolutely no time left for other activities in life. They must have no interests in things like a job, a personal life, hobbies, outdoor activities and recreation.

It appears they would prefer to spend all of their waking hours arguing on the internet. Debating about a topic they say doesn't exist with people who they believe are ignorant, crazy and/or are perpetuating some kind of a hoax.

They are are an odd bunch indeed.
.


They should go over to the thread on ats called....A Word About Trolls.....Keep Calling Them Out

Very interesting and revealing in my opinion. I see how threads like this one show the diamonds in the mud.

So maybe there are Chemtrials or maybe there are not Chemtrials yet because of the lack of recognition the word receives to date in a legal sense. It has not been entered into a dictionary as far as I know but Geo Engineering?.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by fireyaguns

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by ParasuvO
 





Contrail enthusiasts are an odd bunch, they appear to have no problem with them covering the skies and blotting out the sky all over the planet.


They are an odd bunch indeed.

The amount of time they spend posting in these threads leads me to the understanding that they have absolutely no time left for other activities in life. They must have no interests in things like a job, a personal life, hobbies, outdoor activities and recreation.

It appears they would prefer to spend all of their waking hours arguing on the internet. Debating about a topic they say doesn't exist with people who they believe are ignorant, crazy and/or are perpetuating some kind of a hoax.

They are are an odd bunch indeed.
.


They should go over to the thread on ats called....A Word About Trolls.....Keep Calling Them Out

Very interesting and revealing in my opinion. I see how threads like this one show the diamonds in the mud.

So maybe there are Chemtrials or maybe there are not Chemtrials yet because of the lack of recognition the word receives to date in a legal sense. It has not been entered into a dictionary as far as I know but Geo Engineering?.


It helps to get your terms right first, before debating a nebulous position of what you actually believe.

Maybe this will help you on your way to defining terms and facts about the perceived issue:

Stratospheric sulfate aerosols (geoengineering)

From there perhaps you could look into compounds and patents used for these aerosols, and then perform tests in the areas you believe are affected - meaning doing some real ground work and testing the environment for any presence of supposed aerosol compounds.

That could be a way to go about this debate
Just my opinion though.
edit on Mon Mar 11 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 





Maybe this will help you on your way to defining terms and facts about the perceived issue:


Problem is there are actually many names that have been given.

Stratospheric sulfate aerosols is actually not the only term currently being used.

Also other materials such as engineered aluminum and barium nano particles have been proposed.

SRM = solar radiation management is the most common term.

There are also a few other terms being used as well.

SWCE = shortwave climate engineering

Global dimming = effects of anthropogenic aerosol

Cloud whitening is another geoengineering technique which usually refers to the marine layer. But I think there is some cross over into whitening of clouds in the upper atmosphere too.

I see nothing wrong with the use of the term Aerial Geoengineering. It's an accurate description.

There are many forms of land and sea based geoengineering. Even space based geoengineering in the case of solar sun shades. Although SRM is usually used to describe the use of sulfate aerosols. SRM is also the term for some other forms of Geoengineering.

Like Genetically Modified reflective trees or painting the roofs of houses white.

The point is aerial geoengineering doesn't only have to take place in the stratosphere and they may be using material other than sulfates. If they are studying the effects of different aerosols and clouds at one altitude. It would make sense that they are studying these same effects at all altitudes.


edit on 11-3-2013 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ParasuvO


Is it not reasonable to ask why certain planes are emitting while others do not.

.


With the other point you made already addressed I just wanted to say something to this one, there are no planes that do not emit, except gliders. The gasses in jet exhaust are present all the time the plane is under power, whether you see them or not, even when on the ground.

These are potentially far more of a worry than a trail of frozen water 7 miles up in the sky. Maybe that makes Chemtrail accusers the oddest sort of people?


Actually, all of us on here, arguing on the Internet, are a bit odd, including you, aren't we?



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ParasuvO

Is it not reasonable to ask why certain planes are emitting while others do not.


Sometimes simply down to the type of engine. See following video. MaxBliss, a well known chemtrailer, presents the video as some kind of evidence. No other alternative is allowed to be posted and thus the general ignorance of aviation remains.

See from 05:00 and specifically at 05:30. Note that difference in contrail production between the Airbus A340 with hi-bypass turbofan engines and the Dassault Mirage 2000s with lo-bypass turbofan engines?



Even with the same engines a slight difference in altitude can have an effect. Note the B-17 at 01:16 producing no contrails while the B-17s above producing contrails?




posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 

Very interesting viewing both those YouTube links. The first one appears to show only meters between the 4 or 5 smaller planes not producing contrails and the large plane above spewing some very very thick substance out of it.
What was the distance between them all?

The second YouTube clip clearly shows war time efforts to screen the sky with cloud cover for attacks and in other shots communication jamming and poisoning.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by fireyaguns

The second YouTube clip clearly shows war time efforts to screen the sky with cloud cover for attacks and in other shots communication jamming and poisoning.




Right, so that was clearly not a bombing mission called Operation Pointblank. They clearly loaded all those planes with bombs and flew over enemy territory to spray bad juice on them to pre-empt any global warming affects that the ensuing war might cause.

Are we all to assume that "chemtrails" as described here, have been around since WW2?

I know when I spoke to my parents, they sure don't remember the sky looking like that way beck then.............



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 


The first video looks CGI to me...



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by fireyaguns
 


First video; That was the point, as the post explained. It was the different engine types that resulted in different trails.

Second video; you making stuff up off the top of your head does make not something 'clearly' true. Do you have any sources that show any of what you just claimed even happened?
edit on 11-3-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


Yes although it is all classified data. I would get into trouble for disclosing here on Ats.

Please take your own sides advice and research for yourself.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by fireyaguns
 


Ah - the old "I could tell you but I'd have to shoot you" evasion......

I don't believe you.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by fireyaguns
 


You have classified information that you refuse to post?

I don't believe you either, please post your evidence, concealing the classified elements, you know, like you wanted Defcon 5 to do?

I have studied the air war since I was old enough to read, so your exhortation to do my own research is not only funny, but 40 years late. This leads me to suspect that you are knowingly trolling with inaccurate claims.

I will however apologise profusely if you prove me wrong.
edit on 11-3-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by fireyaguns
 


That does not answer the question, info about WW2 is not personal identification info about you, obviously.

I am not Defcon 5, I am Waynos and so am not contradicting anything that was said in that exchange as I was not part of it.

You claim to have info that proves your claims about what you say the video shows. Under what rule is it still secret after 70 years? Can you show evidence of that?



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by fireyaguns
 


It wouldn't surprise me if posting the entirety of someone else's post explaining why asking for personal details is a breach of T&C's, with no comment, in response to a question to which it is irrelevant, is considered off topic.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Sorry you are mistaken. You forgot to mention how the post expains to us you guys don't have to prove anthing and yet here we are and your asking for what you refuse to provide.

where did I asked for personal Id without informing the supplier they were able cover personal details?

Just a con. The Mods are in on it also it appears.



new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 39  40  41    43 >>

log in

join