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.
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.
originally posted by: Petros312
The collective effort of these debunkers are taking away the real need to focus on what is happening in the sky
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
And while I respect your beliefs, you can believe that and still use science for your argument, not speculation and faith based texts. Anyone can make something seem real after a while, and my guess is people have gone up but won't admit it unless they found something.
1. The extent of contrails in the 60s was not nearly what we see today, with more persistent trails occurring from about the 80s.
2. Contrails contribute to global climate change through human-made clouds (even according to NASA).
3. Persistent contrails are the cause of "global dimming" and may negatively impact photosynthesis of plant life.
4. Human-made contrail clouds are trapping warmth in the atmosphere and creating more humidity, which causes proliferation of pests, molds, and diseases.
5. Contrail clouds are not "normal" and produce the kind of sky that has not been seen before.
Given the above, I ask you: Do we even need to prove there's some unexpected toxin present in contrails to agree there's a certain danger in their increasing presence?
Why are you ignoring this fact?
Why are you ignoring this fact?
Chemtrails, Here is your PROOF 100% Real "MUST WATCH"
Given the above, I ask you: Do we even need to prove there's some unexpected toxin present in contrails to agree there's a certain danger in their increasing presence?
Hagakure "Book of the Samurai"
"It is bad when one thing becomes two. One should not look for anything else in the Way of the Samurai. If one understands things in this manner, he should be able to hear about all Ways and be more and more in accord with his own."
originally posted by: anton74
The problem with your argument is that she has been adopted by chemtrailers as one of their own instead of being placed there by debunkers Nobody is debunking her claims because there is nothing to debunk as far as chemtrils [sic].
originally posted by: tothetenthpower
So, this woman...isn't really anything different than your average conspiracy theorist...
So yes it is debunkers who label her as such. I don't see chemtrailers labeling her, but I DO see that what she is concerned about is what many people labelled chemtrail conspiracy theorists are also concerned about, and this is that something harmful is being sprayed in the sky, which may or may not be indicative of what looks like the condensation trail of jet aircraft, which in several ways does qualify as a "chemical trail" or "chemtrail" for short (See In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 6. Contrail vs. Chemtrail ).
originally posted by: tothetenthpower
So, this woman...isn't really anything different than your average conspiracy theorist...
I know you're intentionally distracting readers, but the post to indicate Rosalind Peterson is indeed called a conspiracy theory was clearly quoted: