Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

This is why we "debunk" chemtrails.

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   
When you are looking at dehydrators for sale, be realistic about how often you are going to use it and how much food you will be drying at one time, they come in many shapes and forms.

Thanks.




posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Here is more proof they DO indeed exist, it is in the government records.

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

There is much recorded data. Why would one even bother trying to debunk it, it is true, TPTB do do it. What can we do? Nothing but eventually die off. Nice.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 


Where's the proof?



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Osiris1953
 


Yeah....between hot flashes, humidity, and bugs Florida is not for me!

Looking for a place with three season, skipping winter. Haven't found one yet.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


Go to Hawaii. We used to break out blankets at 60 degrees. lol
edit on 4/19/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


I wouldn't suggest Northumberland then



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by network dude
 


Here is more proof they DO indeed exist, it is in the government records.

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

There is much recorded data. Why would one even bother trying to debunk it, it is true, TPTB do do it. What can we do? Nothing but eventually die off. Nice.


Can you point to any actual recorded data, or what the government records are?

Because Will Thomas's word that it was happening and a graph showing that low visibility is related to mortality is not actually evidence.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by network dude
 


Here is more proof they DO indeed exist, it is in the government records.

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

There is much recorded data. Why would one even bother trying to debunk it, it is true, TPTB do do it. What can we do? Nothing but eventually die off. Nice.


Die off? That sure is odd considering.......
we are living longer, and longer every year. If they are spraying you, you had better thank them.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude




Looking at this picture, you can see a persistent contrail and a new one being formed.
They might be a different altitudes, and probably are, but it's very difficult to tell by just a picture. What is impossible to tell, is what kinds of chemicals are in the persistent contrail. Even if you were looking at this live and in person, you could not tell the altitude or the chemical makeup.

Nobody is saying that chemtrails could not exist. Nobody is saying you have to trust anyone, least of all the government. What is being said, time, after time, after time, is that nobody, not even Chuck Norris, can tell if what you are seeing is a contrail or a chemtrail. Since everyone knows that contrails can persist for hours, and they look just like the contrails that have existed since flight started, we must assume they are contrail until proven otherwise.

If anyone tells you they can spot a chemtrail just by "looking at it" I would be very concerned about their mental stability.


YOU SAY:



Looking at this picture, you can see a persistent contrail and a new one being formed.


So we shouldn't be concerned about your mental stability when you claim you can tell what contrails are in the sky just by looking.........yet those of us who claim to see chemtrails are crazy? Did I just read that contradiction right? So you debunk chemtrails because everything you see MUST be contrails because YOU say so?



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


With over 70 years of observation, testing, and science he can say they are contrails because that is what they are. It's condensation which forms behind planes due to the effect of temperature, pressure, and humidity.

What you cannot do is claim they are anything other than that without supplying some type of evidence.

Can you prove what you see are anything other than the known, contrails?



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Phage
 

Now you're just twisting the info I presented.
Anyone who's interested can look at the following page and read what's in the right hand margin.
www.theglobalcoolingproject.com...


I did and I see this:



A second approach to global warming is large-scale, radical geoengineering.


From here:
en.wikipedia.org...-31

Under "Proposed strategies"


Several geoengineering strategies have been proposed. IPCC documents detail several notable proposals.[29] These fall into two main categories: solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal. However, other proposals exist.


Under "Solar radiation management" we find this:




SRM methods[2] may be:
Surface-based (land or ocean albedo modification); e.g. Cool roof—using pale-coloured roofing and paving materials.
Troposphere-based, for example cloud whitening – using fine sea water spray to whiten clouds and thus increase cloud reflectivity.
Upper atmosphere-based (e.g. stratospheric aerosols). Creating reflective aerosols, such as stratospheric sulfur aerosols, aluminum oxide particles, even specifically designed self-levitating aerosols.[31]
Space-based: E.g. Space sunshade—obstructing solar radiation with space-based mirrors, asteroid dust,[32] etc.


Sure looks to me like one of the ways to geoengineer is by spraying at altitude. You know Phage, looks like you are the one that failed to read the article.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


It looks more like you are confusing study, proposals, research, and similar words with an actual working plan being implemented. All types of geo-engineering are being research, in many nations, for quite a while. There is no plan now to actually do any of the processes, though.

The ethics and legislative parts of geo-engineering are also being discussed, because without a clear global plan, nothing can be accomplished. It's probably the most important thing being discussed in the whole realm of geo-engineering. It is realized that just because plans on paper or modeled in computers would work, no one can possibly tell at what cost...and not just the financial cost.

That is the difference between believers and debunkers. We want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Right now there is no plan, nor evidence of any plan. Debunkers want the truth....and then take off on paranoid flights of fancy, disbelieving anything that negates their belief, without research or the common science knowledge that is needed to make an informed response.

Show that something you would call a "chemtrail" is somehow different from what science has shown to be contrails. Show something that could not possibly be a contrail. Show a test of the contents of a 'trail itself, with something other than the expected chemical composition.

Believers can't. They never have. And until such a program actually exists, never will.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


The title of this thread is "This is why we "debunk" chemtrails".
In support of his topic the OP lists a number of reasons one of which claims that what he sees is 100% always correct yet people who claim to have seen chemtrail spraying with their eyes are questionably mentally unstable and therefore are always 100% false because he says so. This is utterly laughable...........

The OP also used a picture for reference of which he presents NO proof or knowledge of what or how those trails are actually being made, type of aircraft, current weather, location picture was taken, etc,etc.

I did not start this thread or claim anything about that picture so I am under no obligation to prove anything. Feel free to get back on topic with questions relating to what the OP posted or is claiming.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


From here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...




There is nothing about "spraying" to increase cloud cover in your source. Nothing even about cloud seeding. Never mind the fact that persistent contrails do not produce precipitation which reaches the surface and, in fact, have a net warming effect on climate. Your source has nothing to do with "chemtrails".


YES there is.......I just posted it above.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 

But you and the type of questions you present are why I debunk "chemtrails.

I know for a fact that there are three formerly rabid "chemtrail" believers who credit me by name to their beliefs changing. They now understand the science involved, understand the difference in what evidence is credible and know what is the truth.

I don't particularly care if you change your mind or not. But that I was a part in changing the minds and thought of a single person makes me feel very proud. It is what keeps me doing this. I am not a professional in any of the fields involved, if I don't know or understand something, I LEARN about it. If I question something I read, I LEARN until I know the answer. If I am not familiar with a source, I LEARN if they are credible or not.

And that is what I have always told others to do. LEARN. If you don't know, LEARN. If you see different answers to the same question, LEARN the answer. Don't just read one-sided websites and accept the answers given.

A case in point...Carnicom has one of the oldest "chemtrails" sites there is. If you look at his research chronologically, you will see he changes the story often...the who changes, the what changes, the why changes...
That makes no sense, if he is right. If you look at the history of contrail studies, you will see the knowledge is expanded, but the basics remain the same. Real science is like that.

So LEARN. What you don't know is showing.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


You need to practice reading comprehension.
First, why is this to me?
Second, nothing you posted in the post above says anything about any type of spraying going on now. There are the same words about studies, proposals, and the like in the Wiki. But then it goes on to say:


There are no known large-scale geoengineering projects except one conducted outside the scientific mainstream by Russ George. Almost all research has consisted of computer modelling or laboratory tests, and attempts to move to real-world experimentation have proved controversial.


Just what the debunkers have been saying.
And the other source is about Plan C. Which isn't spraying from planes, either.
What did you read?



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


I forgot to say in that post I was responding to Phage who seemed to think there was no reference at all to geoengineering at that link when in fact it does reference it.

It was not stated by "afterthought" as being used only as being listed as an option at that site. However when you research it there is PLENTY of references to types of "spraying" all over the web. Funny how that is for something you debunkers claim is false.

edit on 3-5-2013 by SMOKINGGUN2012 because: added info



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 





In support of his topic the OP lists a number of reasons one of which claims that what he sees is 100% always correct yet people who claim to have seen chemtrail spraying with their eyes are questionably mentally unstable and therefore are always 100% false because he says so


You know how to change that don't you?

Prove chemtrails exist, but you need to have some pretty solid proof and it should be something that hasn't been debunked already..

That is how you prove people wrong.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 





However when you research it there is PLENTY of references to types of "spraying" all over the web. Funny how that is for something you debunkers claim is false.


Please post just one link to one of these types of spraying?



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


I just did.....scroll up to the post at 1:26pm........





new topics




 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join