Pilot admits chemtrails and says they are a "necessary evil"........

reply to post by OneManArmy


There are so many things wrong with that paper it isn't funny. It's been debunked many times.

reply to post by OneManArmy


It's the same arguments, because the same evidence is brought to the table over and over again. It's not going to change just because it's being trotted out a few months after the last time.

Blarneystoner
Anyone else notice that it's always the same three or four members who immediately jump into chemtrail threads to debunk? It's always the same arguments too; "where are the planes", "can't carry that much material", "the pilots who come forth aren't really pilots", etc...

They use the same tactics, same arguments, similar language, etc...

what else would one use against het same old long-proven-rubbish "evidence"?

In the mean time, some officials in other countries are disclosing their country's involvment.

do tell??

It's happening, regardless of what those guys say. It's definitely happening.

so where's the verifiable evidence?

do you realize that most cities in the western world now run air quality programmes - where's all the disease causing "whatever" in those??

OneManArmy

Here is a sourced scientific paper on the subject.

Case Orange

lol - it's anonymous therefore not "scientific" by definition. ASlso the sources given are mostly just other baseless "articles"

Here's what I wrote about its "conclusions" a couple of years ago on another site - I've put in a few new comments that are identified as such.

Just for a start here's its conclusions with some obvious comments:

When combining the knowledge of the formation of contrails, the effects of Cirrus clouds on climate, the historical records of weather manipulation programs, the scientific studies on geo-engineering through modification of Cirrus clouds, the available and patented technology coupled with reactions of pilots on the internet one can only come to the following conclusions:
1. Manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory, but currently the best option in geo-engineering considered by decision makers to counter global warming. The impact of production of artificial Cirrus clouds on temperature and precipitation patterns is supported by adequate hard scientific evidence.

Seems true enough (I'll change that now - there is a lot of discussion since I wrote that that suggests it is actually a bad option)

2. The ambition of the United States is to control the weather by the year 2025, both for civil and military purposes (offensive and defensive strategies). This research paper contains a proven track record to support that statement.

This is an obvious illogical leap from the paper “Owning the weather”, which was (is) a thought exercise and not a plan for how to actually control the world wide climate. Attempts to control local weather through cloud seeding, such as the US carried out in Vietnam, are not “chemtrails” as they are commonly understood.

3. The technology to organize spraying actions on a global scale is widely available. Both civil and military aviation is used for that purpose. The mix, containing oxides of metals and chemical components, can either be dispersed through special designed pods or directly incorporated into the jet fuel. This research paper is well documented in this respect.

This section leaps from the premise that the technology is available to eth conclusion that the technology is being used – I was unable to determine what the “well documented” evidence for this conclusion was in the paper.

4. Since the patents are owned by the main defense contractor for the U.S. armed forces (Raytheon) or the U.S. department of defense itself and given the history record it is obvious that current climate manipulation programs are organized and directed by the United States government.

Presumes that the spraying is taking place in the first place, and, as is commonly the case, does not show that the mentioned patents are in use in any way ,shape or form.

Also, since then, the "Welsbach Patent" is not expired and het system is not patented at all.....

5. The spraying actions in Europe are only possible with prior approval and intense co-ordination on top government level and industry on executive level. The general public is intentionally kept unaware of the existence of such projects.

Presumes that the spraying is taking place in the first place.

6. Although the spraying actions may be considered legal these actions may have a potential detrimental effect on health. There is sufficient scientific evidence available in this research paper to support this thesis.

There is no evidence presented that “spraying operations” are taking place at all – the whole paper follows the usual chemtrails tactic of begging the question and then fitting the facts to the preconception.

Report recommendations:
It is not the purpose of this research paper to give a moral appreciation of these actions. Nevertheless the investigation team unanimously comes to the following recommendations for the future:
a) Artificial Cirrus clouds should be classified as a separate cloud genus by the WMO. Additional scientific research with the effects on nature and public health on this subject should be considered. Results -whatever the outcome- should be made public.

I don’t think anyone has an issue with this – other than they seem unaware of the studies that are doing exactly this, and that the idea has been around, in the public arena, for several decades.

b) It is unacceptable that the Awacs aircraft fleet under NATO operates under a Luxemburg civil registration without complying with civil aviation regulations. This is a flagrant violation of the law and this should be corrected in the near future.

It is up to the nation concerned to define its own law, and there is no case established that this is illegal in Luxembourg in any fashion.

Other AWACs aircraft are not civil registered at all (Eg RAF 8 Sqn, the whole USAF fleet), and often military aircraft are registered under civil registrations but are not subject to all of civil law.

Given the very unfavorable engine emission ratios of this aircraft retrofitting of these engines should be considered as soon as practical.

Are engine types relevant to chemtrails? They are certainly relevant to contrails and general pollution, which the report points out, but what is the connection to chemtrails??

c) When considering a legal case it is better to sue an industrial group, such as Raytheon, rather than a government agency. It is clear for us that the responsibility of Raytheon in this respect is far reaching with the creation of a monopoly in climate modeling and weather as a geo-engineering or military instrument.

Another question begging exercise - presumes that there IS "a monopoly in climate modeling and weather as a geo-engineering or military instrument" when there is ample evidence that research into this is going on all around hte world by many different organisations.

If possible an international ban should be placed on such weapons.

Done.

New comment: and of course it was done years before this report IIRC - which seriously impinges on the idea that the anonymous faceless individuals who cooked up this rubbish are capable of doing even basic research!!

d) Although the existence of weather modification projects have been illustrated in an adequate way in this research paper it is now the duty of a serious politician on any level to make enquiries to the government for public release of these spraying schemes through aviation. It is mandatory that such statement should include the reason why such operations are conducted. It is not an option to hide behind the motive of national security.

Prejudges the adequacy of their proof – it might be enough for them, but it falls well short of what many other people think of as verifiable evidence.

New comment: Actually weather modification - cloud seeding - DOES almost always get public notification in newspapers and the like - at least in the USA - see www.abovetopsecret.com... - again they just show they can't do basic research.

so now you are 0/4
got anything actually NEW??

Zaphod58
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

It's the same arguments, because the same evidence is brought to the table over and over again. It's not going to change just because it's being trotted out a few months after the last time.

And what about this...

Science Mag

Aloysius the Gaul

OneManArmy

Here is a sourced scientific paper on the subject.

Case Orange

lol - it's anonymous therefore not "scientific" by definition. ASlso the sources given are mostly just other baseless "articles"

Here's what I wrote about its "conclusions" a couple of years ago on another site - I've put in a few new comments that are identified as such.

MikeC?
If that is you, it would seem you spend a lot of time on chemtrail forums "debunking" the theories.
So much so that I think that you are a paid shill(debunker). Even uses the same avatar.

reply to post by OneManArmy


Yep it is me - and no, it takes very little time, because you keep coming up with the same ol' drivel and it takes next to no time to show why it is false.

Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

Yep it is me - and no, it takes very little time, because you keep coming up with the same ol' drivel and it takes next to no time to show why it is false.

I just googled "MikeC debunk". You are very prolific in the field of "debunking" a whole cross section of things.
Its as if you are a ..... "professional"

But just notice, Im at least trying to do my homework.

OneManArmy

Zaphod58
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

It's the same arguments, because the same evidence is brought to the table over and over again. It's not going to change just because it's being trotted out a few months after the last time.

And what about this...

Science Mag

what about it - again not a single bit of evidence that any "spraying" is being carried out.

this is a meeting to sort out how to regulate geoengineering - which is a lot more than just potentially spraying in the atmosphere.

There is a lot of concern that there is nothing to stop individuals or groups to do it unilaterally, nd that would be a bad thing.

Again you could find all sorts of info on the topic of regulation of geoengineering here on ATS if you bothered to look:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and an example of an individual doing erxactly that:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I would have thought that laws against geoengieering would be welcomed by chemmies - but no, y'all condemn proposals for them as "proof it is happening"!!

Un-freakin'-believable!!

and also 0/5

OneManArmy

Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

Yep it is me - and no, it takes very little time, because you keep coming up with the same ol' drivel and it takes next to no time to show why it is false.

I just googled "MikeC debunk". You are very prolific in the field of "debunking" a whole cross section of things.

They must be censoring they responses to me then - 'cos when I do it only the top 8 or 9 are me, out of 15,500 responses total - which isn't many eitehr.

Its as if you are a ..... "professional"

got any evidence of me being paid to debunk? I bet you don't......since there is none :p so all you are doing is making up stories.

Better yet - since I do so much of it, can you advise me where I can get paid for it, 'cos that would make life a bit easier!

and are you suggesting that I don't have a right to debunk bunk?

But just notice, Im at least trying to do my homework.

no - you are avoiding doing your homework - you are looking to attack me rather than evaluate the evidence.
Just another chemmie avoidance tactic.

and since you made 2 false claims here you are now 0/7!!

Aloysius the Gaul


what about it - again not a single bit of evidence that any "spraying" is being carried out.

this is a meeting to sort out how to regulate geoengineering - which is a lot more than just potentially spraying in the atmosphere.

There is a lot of concern that there is nothing to stop individuals or groups to do it unilaterally, nd that would be a bad thing.

Again you could find all sorts of info on the topic of regulation of geoengineering here on ATS if you bothered to look:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and an example of an individual doing erxactly that:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I would have thought that laws against geoengieering would be welcomed by chemmies - but no, y'all condemn proposals for them as "proof it is happening"!!

Un-freakin'-believable!!

and also 0/5

Hey I see scientists, many of them, carrying out the theory, registering patents and scientists discussing how to regulate it. Not exactly creating laws against it.

And besides many times profit is involved, ethics go out the window.

Even if chemtrails are not happening right now, it seems there are many many plans to implement it in the future.

University of Oxford - Geoengineering

Aloysius the Gaul

OneManArmy

Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

Yep it is me - and no, it takes very little time, because you keep coming up with the same ol' drivel and it takes next to no time to show why it is false.

I just googled "MikeC debunk". You are very prolific in the field of "debunking" a whole cross section of things.
Its as if you are a ..... "professional"

got any evidence of me being paid to debunk? I bet you don't......since there is none :p so all you are doing is making up stories.

Better yet - since I do so much of it, can you advise me where I can get paid for it, 'cos that would make life a bit easier!

and are you suggesting that I don't have a right to debunk bunk?

But just notice, Im at least trying to do my homework.

no - you are avoiding doing your homework - you are looking to attack me rather than evaluate the evidence.
Just another chemmie avoidance tactic.

and since you made 2 false claims here you are now 0/7!!

edit on 7-11-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

You accuse me of personal attacks then call me a "chemmie" - No Im an agnostic when it comes to geoengineering. As for calling you a shill, thats just my assumption based on circumstantial evidence.

OneManArmy
[
Hey I see scientists, many of them, carrying out the theory,

who? where?

registering patents

which ones - there's lots - which are actualy beign used?

and scientists discussing how to regulate it. Not exactly creating laws against it.

What is regulation except creating laws to control it and therefore make it illegal under at least some circumstances??

Because at het moment it is not illegal AT ALL!!!

And besides many times profit is involved, ethics go out the window. Debunk that.

Debunk what??? Are you claiming that chemtrails make profits? A little more information would be useful to identify what your actual claim is.

Even if chemtrails are not happening right now, it seems there are many many plans to implement it in the future.

University of Oxford - Geoengineering

Yep - and I have said as much above - congratulations - you have made several claims that are actually reasonable/verifiable/true- and not one of them is actually claiming that chemtrails are being sprayed now!!

you have debunked the hoax!

OneManArmy

You accuse me of personal attacks then call me a "chemmie" - No Im an agnostic when it comes to geoengineering.

no you aren't - you have tried to provide "proof" that it is happening eg www.abovetopsecret.com...

And chemmie means nothing more than a believer in chemtrails - it is not better or worse than "debunker" - a statement of fact.

As for calling you a shill, thats just my assumption based on circumstantial evidence.

Exactly.

reply to post by OneManArmy

Oh yes I have noticed, anyone would think they were paid.

Why is it when someone debunks the chemtrail hoax they have to be paid to do so?

Classic chemtrail believer tactic...

Evidence debunked = automatic paid to do so....

reply to post by OneManArmy

If that is you, it would seem you spend a lot of time on chemtrail forums "debunking" the theories.

They call it denying ignorance, you should try it sometime.

reply to post by OneManArmy

And what about this...

What about it?

There is nothing in that paper that proves chemtrails are real, nor does it prove large scale geoengineering is happening now.

reply to post by OneManArmy

The patent exists.

And a whole lot more

I am sorry but just because there are patents that doesn't mean they are being used.

In fact here are 25 that prove my point...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Actually, OMA pointed you to a site which actually is specific and includes Quote, "The first subscale testing" in Solar radiation management. It's probably thanks to a Mr Rowland's honest comments elsewhere that is now giving me a clue to other things going on, but I'll leave that until I get it all 'dusted' down.

reply to post by Blarneystoner

Anyone else notice that it's always the same three or four members who immediately jump into chemtrail threads to debunk? It's always the same arguments too; "where are the planes", "can't carry that much material", "the pilots who come forth aren't really pilots", etc...

They use the same tactics, same arguments, similar language, etc...

In the mean time, some officials in other countries are disclosing their country's involvment.

It's happening, regardless of what those guys say. It's definitely happening.

Other than complaining about who replies on these threads are you able to provide any evidence of these officials in other countries disclosing that it is happening.

Since your so sure it is happening please show the evidence to back it up....if you can.