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.

 

How will we know if it's natural weather or weaponized weather warfare?

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





It would just look like weather.


Then why spend money making a weapon if they can let regular weather do it for them since there is no difference between the two?


There isn't any difference between a disastrous weather event that was caused by natural forces as opposed to one that was caused by man's intervention? To you, there's no difference? Would it make a difference to you, do you think, if you ever found out that a supposedly 'natural' disaster that you or your family suffered in was in reality man-made or instigated?

And who said anything about making a weapon?




posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   

DenyObfuscation

luxordelphi

DenyObfuscation
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





How would we, on the wrong end of a weather experiment, be able to tell whether or not it is natural?


Don't we have plenty of people that can "Just look up"?


Very astute, Hall Monitor, because contrails persisting without proper conditions for persistence would certainly be a way to tell.


Then what are you implying here? How would/did/do you CONCLUDE a lack of proper conditions for persistence?




It was Carnicom. Back when I first saw the cr*p in the sky I was curious and a little miffed because though I lived in an area that is just about as remote as you can get, not to mention 8000 ft., the night sky became obscured.

I read a lot of stuff about contrails/chemtrails but it was in a paper by Carnicom that I read how the parameters for persistent contrail formation were not being met. He had actually done the measurements himself (bright boy!) and it was the first thing that made any sense out of the tons of stuff I had read to that point.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Give this a look and see if it addresses the Carnicom claims you mention.

www.metabunk.org...



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   

DenyObfuscation
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Give this a look and see if it addresses the Carnicom claims you mention.

www.metabunk.org...


The metabunk site you link is full of lies and false information and dis-information. How do I know? When the link was first put forward from someone in your camp, I looked up some stuff on there that I do know a lot about. Kind of like reading something in the paper that is personal in some way and understanding, because of personal knowledge of an event, how false the reporting can be.

One of the things that I like most about the people who acknowledge chemtrails and/or sit on the fence about them is that they are independent thinkers. Amongst ourselves, there is almost nothing we agree upon. There is a wonderful sort of freedom in this - an exchange of ideas and theories impossible within government censored science.



...see if it addresses the Carnicom claims you mention...


What I read, online, back then, were field notes...temperature, humidity etc. He did the leg work. I read and reaped the benefits of his, at the time, unrewarded work.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





The metabunk site you link is full of lies and false information and dis-information.

Anything specific regarding the refutation of Carnicom at the link?



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   

luxordelphi

DenyObfuscation
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Give this a look and see if it addresses the Carnicom claims you mention.

www.metabunk.org...


The metabunk site you link is full of lies and false information and dis-information. How do I know? When the link was first put forward from someone in your camp, I looked up some stuff on there that I do know a lot about. Kind of like reading something in the paper that is personal in some way and understanding, because of personal knowledge of an event, how false the reporting can be.


Can you give a specific example of something on there that is false, a lie, or disinfo?



What I read, online, back then, were field notes...temperature, humidity etc. He did the leg work. I read and reaped the benefits of his, at the time, unrewarded work.


Where are those available?


edit on 5-1-2014 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





What I read, online, back then, were field notes...temperature, humidity etc. He did the leg work. I read and reaped the benefits of his, at the time, unrewarded work.


Cliff Carnicom are you serious?

What leg work did he do?

Let's look at some of his so called achievements shall we...



So he can cure a disease that doesn't exist...Interesting.



Now we have him discussing a new research project with his independent consultant that just so happens to be a chiropractor.

So I ask if your researching such an infectious disease why wouldn't you have a doctor that specializes in the field of infectious diseases and not a chiropractor?

Yep, his research and his researchers are top notch...


The reason his research was unrewarded was because it was, and still is baseless with no evidence to prove his allegations.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



The metabunk site you link is full of lies and false information and dis-information.


I see you as a prime example of an intelligent adult that has been drawn in by lies and disinformation from the chemtrail sites to the degree that you are now spreading their lies for them.

First convince someone that contrails cannot persist for more than a few minutes. Once you have achieved that, job done. Every contrail that persists and spreads is a physical validation in that persons eyes that allows them to believe any old crap that further distances them from reality.

This is why every chemtrail site contains that claim, it's the hook by which all the fish are reeled in.

How many times have we seen you write that 15 minutes is a max for contrail persistence? Where did YOU get this information from?

Why is it different for clouds? Shouldn't suspended water ice crystals in the stratosphere behave the same way however they got there?

How come all aviation reports into the subject since WW2 talk of mixtures of persistant trails and short trails according to conditions and not one source states that all contrails are short lived?


edit on 5-1-2014 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



So that is the point of this thread: how would we know? How could we know? What steps would help us to know? How could we, caught between the cross hairs, as it were, know??!!


If you find nanobots in rainwater, that would be a pretty good clue. Also, a stationary low pressure system caused by intense microwave radiation might be another. In fact, the more knowledgeable about meteorology and science you are, and the closer you pay attention to your environment, the easier it will be for you to spot "weaponized weather," so crack those books and start learning.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   

luxordelphi

mrthumpy

luxordelphi
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Ok...I'll make a list, off the top, of what I think might cause the start-stop contrail/chemtrail behavior and I'll list all the ones I can think of without prejudice to sides in that debate but first, to stay topical, I'll quote the OP link on this subject.

1. Different temperatures
2. Different humidities
3. Different particle concentrations


(The first 3 are a stretch.) (They involve some of those perfect storm conditions that you all are so fond of.)


The first three are a stretch? Seriously do you NEVER look up? You see those OTHER white fluffy things in the sky that don't come from planes? You see the gaps between those?


Outrageously persistent contrails don't make rain clouds. Keep on keeping on looking, though, and the light will come on.


Who mentioned anything about rain clouds? I was trying to offer you a way to understand how contrails could stop and start but it obviously went clean over your head. If you think about it for long enough it may start to make some sort of sense though, keep looking up.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   

luxordelphi

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





It would just look like weather.


Then why spend money making a weapon if they can let regular weather do it for them since there is no difference between the two?


There isn't any difference between a disastrous weather event that was caused by natural forces as opposed to one that was caused by man's intervention? To you, there's no difference? Would it make a difference to you, do you think, if you ever found out that a supposedly 'natural' disaster that you or your family suffered in was in reality man-made or instigated?



Well, the one happens all the time, and always has done

The other is pure science fiction

The concern is that people, ignorant of weather and climate, start telling people that the former is the latter.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
This is priceless. Could weaponized weather be an effective tool? Yes! therefore, we must all rally together and complain about chemtrails!

I think someone missed their stop on the logic train.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





A stressed populace is an easily controlled populace.


So you are a agent of TPTB by posting what a drive-by reader might get stressed by after reading.

How much stress to create for yourself and others?

Constant fear mongering in what you post, why do allow fear to dictate your life so much?

A majority is about how "they" are lying and doing evil spreading chemtrails and using weather warfare, Harrp etc.

How can speculate what "they" do, the purposes they do what they do when you fail to know who "they" are?

That is the main issue many conspiracy theorist have, they jump way too far ahead of themselves and use their speculated conclusions as facts or past wrongs as proof of present wrong doing.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   

luxordelphi

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Tucket
 





Im not claiming to have the answers Surfer, I was just perplexed as to why you would post that information when you yourself (yes im assuming that this is general knowledge) are aware that the rules of convention arent always followed.


Again this is about the weaponizing of weather not any other rules of convention.

I never said that rules aren't broken, but when talking about this topic there is no evidence showing any country has gone and broken the UN rules concerning the weather as a weapon, or that they are looking for ways to do so.



This is about the FACT that weaponized weather is the perfect weapon because no one would know. It would just look like weather.



Many would know or suspect,

these many are called meteorologists, they study the weather and make predictions and forecasts.

If strange weather was to occur then the meteorologists would study it and determine if it was natural or if there something else at hand.

To say "NO one would know" is coming from your ignorance on how clouds form.

Many would suspect and through research would conclude if such was happening.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Lets make this as simple as possible and take it one step at a time





My statement is not about assessment. It's about proper conditions for contrail persistence. That's the conclusion; not assessment.


The question was how did you asses such to come to that conclusion,

is that really hard to understand?

How did you speculate/know/asses the conditions were not right for persistent contrails?



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   

DJW001
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



So that is the point of this thread: how would we know? How could we know? What steps would help us to know? How could we, caught between the cross hairs, as it were, know??!!


If you find nanobots in rainwater, that would be a pretty good clue. Also, a stationary low pressure system caused by intense microwave radiation might be another. In fact, the more knowledgeable about meteorology and science you are, and the closer you pay attention to your environment, the easier it will be for you to spot "weaponized weather," so crack those books and start learning.


Thank you for your topical and INTRIGUING post.

Nano's in rainwater are beyond the scope of equipment I have access to but, one never knows what tomorrow's acquaintance might bring.

The microwave radiation sounds like it would be detectable by Ham radio operators. There are a bunch of sites like that on the internet - various receivers set up to monitor HAARP, for instance. Also various sites claiming to have detected frequency signatures prior to earthquakes.

How could a low pressure system be held in place by intense microwave radiation?

Don't we already have this intensity in urban areas? Or does it require more concentration? Or more direct guidance?



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



How could a low pressure system be held in place by intense microwave radiation?

Don't we already have this intensity in urban areas? Or does it require more concentration? Or more direct guidance?


I was indulging in wild speculation. If a geosynchronous satellite were to beam enough microwave radiation onto a fixed area, things would tend to heat up. If enough of the surface and buildings got warm, the air would expand, forming a low pressure system over the area. There would be much more serious side effects than rain, however.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 




Anything specific regarding the refutation of Carnicom at the link?


The link is bunk.


reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




Can you give a specific example of something on there that is false, a lie, or disinfo?


The link is bunk. Pick a topic that you have personal, not mainstream, information about and read what the bunk link has to say.



Where are those available?


They were available on the internet in the first half of the 2000's. That was before Carnicom set up his own non-profit website.


reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 




Cliff Carnicom are you serious?


Far more serious about my topic than you. Why are you attempting to malign a serious researcher with impeccable credentials? Morgellon's and depopulation are serious issues and there is plenty of evidence for both as an elite agenda.

This thread is about how we might be able to differentiate between a "natural" weather event and weaponized weather. (A clue for the clueless!)

Take your maligning somewhere else.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


@How will we know if it's natural weather or weaponized weather warfare?

If hypothesized tech exist and are being designed or used by many. It would seem this technology would be kept hush by all potential users due to its potential negative effect on mass society realizing the impacts upon them considering causalities. So it would be hard to know. The chemtrails may be part of a defense sensed but that's as close a public may get w/o someone sharing.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 




I see you as a prime example of an intelligent adult that has been drawn in by lies and disinformation from the chemtrail sites to the degree that you are now spreading their lies for them.


There is no "them." You're only talking to me, slim, because I've never found another chemtrail believer or fence sitter that agrees with me enough to form a "them." I've only found people that, through observation, feel there is something foul afoot.



How many times have we seen you write that 15 minutes is a max for contrail persistence? Where did YOU get this information from?


How many times, in the historical pix, have we seen a duration given? NONE. None, that is, except for my duration of: "perhaps, 15 minutes." Which is a quote from a WWII pilot. I try to bring whatever witness evidence I can to this topic. But, frankly, its' significance seems lost in this forum.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join