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 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.
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.
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.
Looking at this picture, you can see a persistent contrail and a new one being formed.
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...
A second approach to global warming is large-scale, radical geoengineering.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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
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.