I want to be a CHEMTRAIL DEBUNKER, page 32

Pages: << 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 25 times

reply posted on 9-3-2013 @ 01:34 PM by bluestorm

reply to post by network dude

yep never cross paths

reply posted on 9-3-2013 @ 02:03 PM by waynos

reply to post by bluestorm

Nice image, here's one of mine. How would you expect the flight from London to get to Aberdeen without crossing the path of the Turkish Airlines flight to Dublin?

Also there is this map showing the domestic US routes of Delta Airlines. Now if you visualise their international routes too, plus those flown by every other airline, those grids and X's are not so rare, are they.

edit on 9-3-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-3-2013 @ 02:22 PM by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by bluestorm

Yep, because the planes that fly in the sky only fly in one direction. The NEVER cross paths.

I think you need to make the sarcasm more obvious....

reply posted on 9-3-2013 @ 02:30 PM by tsurfer2000h

reply to post by bluestorm

yep never cross paths

Here you go...

and a good one of them crossing here...

reply posted on 9-3-2013 @ 04:47 PM by defcon5

Originally posted by fireyaguns
reply to post by defcon5

Thank you for the reply. You wrote this: I can answer some of that, but not all. You're asking for some really silly stuff that I'd be utterly insane to post on a public forum.

What is silly about asking you to prove your statement when We are all required to do so.

You have typed some words but gave not one peice of proof, not even one.

here is what happen for those who have a problem with equal consideration.

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

You're asking me to provide you with personal information including other peoples names, bank slips, and pay-stubs. I chose to politely overlook that and let it slide, but it is in fact a T&C violation for you to ask for it, or for myself to post it. The staff here regularly removes personal information that is posted on the site, so why would I post my, or other coworkers, personal information knowing that it's a violation:
Terms and Conditions

15e.ii) You will not Post, use the chat feature, use videos, or use the private message system to collect or ask for the personal information (data mining) about forum members, including email addresses and "real life" names, in any manner whatsoever, or for any reason whatsoever.

Additionally, if I publicly posted airline specific paperwork, I'd be getting a knock on my door from the FBI or DHS. Most of that sort of paperwork is considered secure since 911 to prevent people making authentic looking forgeries.

With this is mind, I politely gave you an alternative method to vet my informational by contacting any other staff member.

You should also be aware of this little T&C tid-bit:

15). Posting: You will not Post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate. You will not solicit personal information from any member. You will not use information gathered from this website to harass, abuse or harm other people.

This means that it would also be a T&C violation for me to falsely state that I have done something that I have not. In the fact that I have posted it, and am a staff member, you can take assurance that what I posted is truthful. If you doubt the accuracy, again contact another staff member because if I'm lying, I'm breaking the T&C myself.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

reply posted on 9-3-2013 @ 05:36 PM by bluestorm

reply to post by bluestorm

yes they cross paths and then their contrails attract the cirrus, the effects is what im concerned about.. i took this picture thurs an hr after clear blue skies and an hr before a complete overcast, having a passive solar house i would say fake clouds suck, i cant test them but many times i watched them being intelligently made and i dont dont really care what they are made of chemtrail or contrails, i past that debate, the effects are very visible and deserve discussion...

reply posted on 9-3-2013 @ 06:07 PM by DenyObfuscation

Originally posted by bluestorm
reply to post by bluestorm

yes they cross paths and then their contrails attract the cirrus, the effects is what im concerned about.. i took this picture thurs an hr after clear blue skies and an hr before a complete overcast, having a passive solar house i would say fake clouds suck, i cant test them but many times i watched them being intelligently made and i dont dont really care what they are made of chemtrail or contrails, i past that debate, the effects are very visible and deserve discussion...

Are you saying you think those contrails caused a clear sky to become completely overcast?

reply posted on 9-3-2013 @ 06:26 PM by bluestorm

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

yes with the right conditions a complete contrail cirrus overcast happens, and happens often in my neck of the woods..

as to the effects
www.earthtechling.com...

edit on 9-3-2013 by bluestorm because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-3-2013 @ 07:17 PM by SheopleNation

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Whats the problem don't want to get shown that you are wrong

You overestimate yourself. You don't dictate what I decide to post here.

You can't prove that chemtrails exist anymore than I can prove that they do. That is the reality of the situation.

Everything else is just you attempting to make this about me, instead of focusing on the topic of the thread. ~$heopleNation

edit on 9-3-2013 by SheopleNation because: TypO

reply posted on 9-3-2013 @ 07:37 PM by DenyObfuscation

reply to post by bluestorm

yes with the right conditions a complete contrail cirrus overcast happens, and happens often in my neck of the woods..

I read your link and saw this

When contrails spread to form cirrus clouds, they can persist for hours and extend over areas of several square kilometers.

It seems a bit of a stretch to blame two contrails for a completely overcast sky. I would be more likely to believe that existing clouds moved in over your area.

If you disagree and have the means to roll continuous video showing what you believe to be the case I would certainly take the time to watch it. It might be easier though to go back and see what actually happened on the day you're referring to. I would think one of the members here could help you find that info to view.

reply posted on 9-3-2013 @ 07:41 PM by DenyObfuscation

Originally posted by SheopleNation

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Whats the problem don't want to get shown that you are wrong

You overestimate yourself. You don't dictate what I decide to post here.

You can't prove that chemtrails exist anymore than I can prove that they do. That is the reality of the situation.

Everything else is just you attempting to make this about me, instead of focusing on the topic of the thread. ~$heopleNation

edit on 9-3-2013 by SheopleNation because: TypO

Very well said, specifically "You can't prove that chemtrails exist anymore than I can prove that they do. That is the reality of the situation." Don't worry about it though, no one else seems to be able to prove they exist either.

edit on 9-3-2013 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-3-2013 @ 07:42 PM by neformore

We're talking about this on ATS Live! Tonight. Join us!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply posted on 9-3-2013 @ 07:50 PM by SheopleNation

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
Very well said.

Well thank you very much.

Don't worry about it though

I don't spend my time worrying about chemtrails everyday. I enjoy discussing the subject sometimes though.

no one else seems to be able to prove they exist either.

That is true. Just as nobody else seems to be able to prove that they do not exist.

See how that works my friend? ~$heopleNation

reply posted on 9-3-2013 @ 08:04 PM by waynos

One thing about all my posts on the subject I would like people to bear in mind is that I am NOT saying that chemtrails do not or cannot exist.

I am saying that those highly visible trails in the sky are not them because;

a) They ALWAYS conform completely to what is known and understood about contrails, following decades of research and study. Despite some people thinking that them not knowing equals no-one knowing

b) None of the sources posted in support of the argument have ever actually supported it. No fleets of aircraft capable, no descriptions of thick visble spreading trails, nada. Merely lots of speculation and conjecture about what might be tried at some unspecified future date, IF the means to do it can be developed.

And while everyone is looking at contrails, the real GE operations, if and when they begin, will avoid your attention completely as you continue to point at clouds.

In. A. Nutshell.

Until tomorrow, farewell amigos

reply posted on 9-3-2013 @ 08:15 PM by SheopleNation

reply to post by neformore

Listening to ATS Live right now my friend!

~$heopleNation

reply posted on 10-3-2013 @ 03:26 AM by fireyaguns

reply to post by defcon5

First, are you not mistaken saying I have T&C violations when all I have asked for is proof of your claim?
Is it not up to you to protect you identity?

Can you not supply any documentation supporting the planes your worked on as in the name of the plane, plane registration or id codes, and dates your worked on them with the job sheet and or job description dated to help with matching up the plane and job x location + which hanger and your claim to have worked on any of them of course by protecting the I d's?

I am sure you could show many if not some payment slip or bank records without revealing your name and account numbers which would match up with the jobs and dates you claim you have done for evergreen?

Is it not you posting false information? T&C violation

reply posted on 10-3-2013 @ 03:42 AM by fireyaguns

This below is what the Aerial Geo Engineering threads are like.

This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship. Anaxagoras maintained that snow is black, but no one believed him. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray. Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen. As yet there is only one country which has succeeded in creating this politician's paradise.

reply posted on 10-3-2013 @ 03:59 AM by AndyMayhew

Originally posted by bluestorm
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

yes with the right conditions a complete contrail cirrus overcast happens, and happens often in my neck of the woods..

Indeed. It's a well know consequence of aircraft contrails in certain conditions and has been studied since long before many chemtrail believers were even born.

ie, the description here from a 1970 paper

See also:

On the Transition of Contrails into Cirrus Clouds

reply posted on 10-3-2013 @ 04:04 AM by AndyMayhew

Originally posted by waynos
... while everyone is looking at contrails, the real GE operations, if and when they begin, will avoid your attention completely as you continue to point at clouds.

Exactly

- a point I too have made on numerous occasions.

Smoke and mirrors.

I've never seen any evidence that any spraying operations, for any purpose, would be visible from the ground!

reply posted on 10-3-2013 @ 05:44 AM by waynos

reply to post by AndyMayhew

Very true, a few pages back I repeated a question I have been asking on here for years, I am wanting someone to point out what links seeing trails in the sky to ANY of the evidence that Chemtrail believers trust?

The way I see this particular theory is that some people, either through ignorance of aviation and genuine concern or through knowledge of how easily a buck can be made from the gullible, pointed at thick visible aircraft contrails and started calling it a deliberate spraying operation. They then tried to reinforce that claim by hauling in as 'evidence' reports of GE proposals that don't describe anything like contrails, rainwater and sludge testing that seems to somehow prove that any particle that falls to earth can only come from a contrail, and patents that describe various proposals for mechanisms without any evidence at all that any of them have been made and used, this is considered valid evidence despite there also being patents for time machines and other unused and useable ideas by the thousands.

So what tangibly connects ANY of this evidence to actual trails in the sky apart from somebody claimed it or an assumption based on the believer being unable to "accept" that regular flights can cause grids, crosses and persistent spreading trails?

So far, not one single reply to that direct question, I only hope it has resulted in some people questioning inwardly why they believe, and trying to find the answer.

It's not even a matter of joing the dots. There are no dots, just disparate, unconnected items jammed together, in a sort of 'Frankentheory'.

Of course I've had the entirely transparent response that says that they know, but don't want to say, but we know what that really means. If I knew the answer I'd be shouting it loud and clear.

edit on 10-3-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)