((NEW)) Geoengineering And The Collapse Of Earth 2014. Its worse than you think! A big eye opener.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

If one is suspicious and wants to search for evidence of chemicals being sprayed that's fine. The problem is what is so often presented is no more than "look up". I do look up and all I can see are contrails. Contrails that behave differently at different times, like clouds and the weather do.

I stated this a long time ago here, and I can't for the life of me, recall which thread. In general terms of looking up, I'll simply state that I've seen the skies and cloud formation in short periods that some here have described. Maybe...3 or 4 times over my decade and a half of trucking around the lower 48 states. I can't be sure what I saw are what people call Chemtrails or not. I CAN say the behavior was similar and a couple of those times were over the Amarillo/Panhandle area if that's of any interest to anyone.

Can I prove I saw this? Nope... Then again, ATS isn't science.com. Proof positive isn't what I'm required to supply when I'm sharing personal observations. It keeps me going with an open mind, having seen what's described though.

On Seeding? We simply disagree on ways some things may be defined or classified. It happens.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Seeing as how the clouds and contrails have an overall net warming affect, I would think the IPCC would want less contrails. Making more only hampers the global warming problem. If chemtrails are real, then the conspiracy is MASSIVE as the IPCC is trying to destroy the world.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Can I prove I saw this? Nope... Then again, ATS isn't science.com. Proof positive isn't what I'm required to supply when I'm sharing personal observations.

What about what I see?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: mindtricks11

Just think it's about time this particular subject is regarded as truth rather than conspiracy as we can see it happen in front of us

Do you ever see a plane leaving a trail across the sky but different parts behave differently? Some lengths of the trail persist while one or more segments dissipate before your eyes, but the plane was "spraying" the whole time. What's up with that?

On more than one occasion I've seen two pretty much parallel trails in the sky with a large segment missing from each trail. The missing segments were in about the same area of the sky. Then I saw a third plane come along and "spray" a trail parallel to the other two. I watched with great anticipation as the third continuous trail soon dissipated only in that same area as the first two trails dissipated.

It's the variability in atmospheric conditions, not chemicals.

Have you ever seen that? What would you then believe about the claims that contrails can't persist for more than x amount of time therefore, "chemtrails" if you have? If you haven't then look for it. It will free your mind.

I thought "chemtrails" were real when I came here. I avoided this forum for a while because I thought it would all be over my head. At first it seemed that way but with continued reading and looking up it all came together. I don't rely solely on the science but my observations have reinforced the science I have learned since reading here.

Wrabbit2000
It keeps me going with an open mind, having seen what's described though.

That's good. Consider what I have seen and described as well. Keep an eye out for it if haven't already seen it. While your mind is open, does the proposed cause adequately explain the observed effects? I know chemicals are not necessary to explain them.

Wrabbit2000
On Seeding? We simply disagree on ways some things may be defined or classified. It happens.

People may simply disagree on chocolate vs vanilla. No right answer even though chocolate blows vanilla away.
When people disagree on matters of fact you should find that at least one party is incorrect.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Seeing as how the clouds and contrails have an overall net warming affect, I would think the IPCC would want less contrails. Making more only hampers the global warming problem. If chemtrails are real, then the conspiracy is MASSIVE as the IPCC is trying to destroy the world.

Get back with me when you've read the report in my signature link from start to finish..or something similar to understand, not guess, at what the IPCC has and is considering to be necessary for mitigation to what they sincerely see as the doom and eventual death of our species on Earth. They take doom and gloom to levels not quite seen before in official policy making circles...but as I'm getting back into this forum now to share some of what I've been coming across, I'll be EXTREMELY tight on facts and keeping to them..or opinion..and noting each as such.

The fact the IPCC has seriously considered and is likely still discussing deliberate formation of clouds, seeding of clouds, chemical balance of the worlds oceans and deliberate altering of that balance to change the dynamics of C02 absorption is a part which isn't opinion. That part is fact. Again, as explained in their own wording, in great detail.

Not every aspect of chemical distribution in aerial form is bunk. Not every area of geoengineering is bunk.

I look forward to exploring that in much greater detail in the near future.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

What about what I see?

I appreciate your observations as well. However, were you in the Panhandle of Texas, in my truck with me..or in the area at all, when I've seen what I have described? If you haven't, then suggesting what I saw is one thing or another is, at the very best, blind guess work. It could be that aircraft..if they do exist...which disperse these trails are a RARE thing, and not common. It could very well be, if they exist, that it's prototypes and testing. In which case, seeing and talking about that observation early, when it's still rare, would be important.

I can't definitively dismiss or classify your observations any more than anyone can mine. Proving a negative is also absurdly impossible...and that is where saying no one has ever seen legitimate chemtrails stands. Proving a negative. That's an impossible standard to reach or even attempt.

Have you ever seen that? What would you then believe about the claims that contrails can't persist for more than x amount of time therefore, "chemtrails" if you have? If you haven't then look for it. It will free your mind.

Thank you, but hold the condescension with me. I don't need my mind "free" by your definitions of that term. I have quite enough effort and energy available to educate myself on the topic and ...WE DISAGREE.

Disagreement isn't ignorance, it's not stupidity and it's not something anyone has the right to ridicule or attack.

I have the absolute right to my opinion. You have the absolute right to yours. Neither of us has ANY right to run down or attack the other based on that opinion or interpretation of what we view in the world around us.

I hope we can avoid the personal as I get much more involved here for awhile.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000
You have completely misunderstood/deflected everything I've said to you. Talking to you doesn't seem worth the risk right now.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

At the risk of rubbing the fur the wrong way, ....

The report by the IPCC is a list of ideas from experts. Some make sense, some are nuts. All are just IDEAS. If anything is being done, this report would list it and the results. For example:

Strategies to persue CDR include: 1. Engaging in afforestation and/or reforestation; 2. Employing no-till agriculture; 3.
Using biomass fuel with CCS; 4. Engaging in ocean fertilization to increase biotic up-take; 5. Enhancing natural weathering
(e.g., add alkalinity to soils); and 6. Directly scrubbing from the air with engineered systems. In the talk, each is described
and critiqued briefly.

Page 28 of the IPCC report (in Wrabbit2000's signature)

As we have seen in recent news:

(NaturalNews) A joint study from the University of Cornell and the University of Berkeley has uncovered evidence that producing biodiesel from plants such as maize and sunflower uses up more energy than the resulting fuel produces.

Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...##ixzz305N4UKGd

So as time progresses, and some ideas are tried, their worthiness will also be tried and reported.

As of this moment, there is not indication anywhere that SRM is taking place. (spraying things into the sky to reflect sunlight)

originally posted by: angelchemuel

3.I have friends who are ex RAF.

3. My friends from the RAF are the ones who first brought my attention 15 years ago to chemtrailing.........that is enough for me. They explained the difference that is visible with your own eyes between a contrail and a chemtrail, and I'm not just talking about the difference in trail or altitude....that has been explained to me by these guys...it's the distance between the plane and where a con or chem trail starts. These friends are not just pilots, they are technicians and radar operators (and that one sealed it for me) etc. None of them know each other btw...so it wasn't some chat over a few drinky poos! At the end of the day...these guys know far more about atmospherics, altitude, emissions etc from aircraft than any armchair pro or con chemtrail debunker/believer think they know who come on forums. Each and every one of my friends say they are chemtrailing.

Your friends in the RAF are pulling a fast one on you. It is called a wind-up in forces jargon and very much a sport. It really is amazing how gullible some people can be. I served 22 years in the RAF and yes these friends of yours are pulling a fast one.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I appreciate your observations as well.

Well how about a comment on the observations? What does what I've described mean for the claims that if a trail persists it's a "chemtrail"?

If you haven't, then suggesting what I saw is one thing or another is, at the very best, blind guess work.

To be clear, I've suggested nothing about what you saw. It's not even clear to me what you saw.

It could be that aircraft..if they do exist...which disperse these trails are a RARE thing, and not common. It could very well be, if they exist, that it's prototypes and testing. In which case, seeing and talking about that observation early, when it's still rare, would be important.

I don't believe that's dismissed from possibility however that is not what is claimed to be the case by the "chemtrail" side. That is not what is being argued against.

Thank you, but hold the condescension with me.

That wasn't condescension.

Will you make an effort to assess what I described? Please?

a reply to: network dude

That would mark the first time in the church's 2,000-year history that two popes would honor the memory of two previous ones.

Why would any of that rub me the wrong way? I'm not suggesting anything as confirmed fact or established occurrence.

Of course my IPCC thread is presenting discussions and what they considered for future methods and tactics. I'd never suggest it any other way, and that's how it was and is presented in my writing. So we agree on that being suggestions and proposals.

I'm interested in exploring the full extent and meaning of that and other discussions of dispersal of chemical and similar material into the atmosphere by aircraft. (Or other means)

Perhaps the discussions by international policy advisers are entirely theory...and perhaps not.

That is what seems interesting to look at, since the idea of deployed chemical substances above our heads isn't theory to THAT extent (Malathion...seeding clouds for rain... Solar mitigation through dispersion of particulate in the high stratosphere...etc). The question really comes down to WHICH chemicals have been dumped, using which specific method and whether it's been done for impact to an entire region or more at once.

I'm not sure on that last part...but I'm finding the research interesting to explore. Even seeding can have regional impact and likely well beyond...as I'm working on with something else at the moment.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

To be clear, I've suggested nothing about what you saw. It's not even clear to me what you saw.

I'm sorry then, I may well have misunderstood you. Then we can agree that what I personally observed a few times in my years of driving our nation may have been chemtrails as they are defined. They may well not have been to, but we just can't know. I thought you were dismissing that. I appreciate the open minded approach.

I'll also concede that whatever I and others have seen with our eyes, may be extremely rare and experimental or even strictly prototype testing for viability. Who knows for sure.... It just seemed it was being suggested these didn't exist because folks hadn't personally seen them and no one could prove them to a definitive level.

After all, I can't prove UFO's either. No one can to this date. It's all subjective observation and credibility of witnesses to discuss what is, technically, a theory until someone has a physical craft or body to show off. A lot of fascinating topics are based on far less than solid proof, eh?

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Then we can agree that what I personally observed a few times in my years of driving our nation may have been chemtrails as they are defined.

Can't agree or disagree. I don't know what you saw.

How are "chemtrails" defined?

I'll also concede that whatever I and others have seen with our eyes, may be extremely rare and experimental or even strictly prototype testing for viability.

Maybe, hard to say for sure. That of course is not what is usually claimed here though. We have to fight against the baseless claims that persistent contrails persist due to their chemical content. I specifically described what I've seen on several occasions that tells me that claim is false. That is what I argue against.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

True.. I do agree that there is a very large disconnect in basic awareness of nature when contrails are suggested as having to be chemical laden beyond what jet exhaust already produces.

I can't find it any longer and I wish I could, to add to my aviation weather map series that I reference, but last year I'd seen a daily updating national map which predicted contrail formation and at what altitudes. Aviation maps already show clearly where the freeze levels are in altitude for any given period, but this went a bit further to taking other factors into consideration.

I just can't find it. Hmpf.. Something like that would probably do a great service to removing the vast majority of claims to what conditions well explain for any given area.

After all, as you've noted, contrails are a simple matter of warm air forcing into cold air at altitude to be seen and in a tight stream, to be really over simplified about it, eh?

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

cloudsgate2.larc.nasa.gov...

a reply to: mrthumpy

Thank You! Not just for me and getting that back into my collection...but for the forum in general as a valuable tool relating to a lot of what is discussed in here.

that "wet in the bath" analogy doesn't seem right?
we're not talking about someone sitting up in a bath tub
..their body is going to be half wet/half dry when they get out
we already tried to address this 'variance', didn't we?


"believe what i want"??

since i don't actually know what's going on, how could i *believe* anything just yet?
one could opine the same to you, good sir, with your various NAZINASA sources
/adjusts tinfoil hat