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.
I will say that the Op has not done his research. Petersen has been debunked time after time
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: BO XIAN
The video is from 2007, and she isn't talking about chemtrails from planes.
Here's her in an interview in 2012
"We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs. And if we go to sue someone, we have to have enough rock solid evidence that is so tight to make a case so that we don't lose the case, and that we have many many people, in other words experts in various fields, to testify on our behalf. This mean university professors, this means people that can come and back up our statements, back up the studies, where we can prove that the jets for example reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth, they change the climate. And so what happens is, that when I see though, that we are talking about suing, ... who? In other words, I find that the direct proof to link up who's doing what ..., and also I can tell you that in ten years of research, other than aluminum coated fiberglass, chaff releases by the US Military, I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions. Now I can prove that the rocket programs in the United States are releasing trimethylaluminum, aluminum oxide, barium. I can prove the rocket programs in the United States are just coating us with toxic chemicals all the time. And these programs are listed at NASA, NOAA, the US Air Force, the US Navy, I mean there's tests going on all the time. The US Navy CARE program is a prime example. So I can prove, I have so many documents I couldn't even put them all on the internet, even if I tried, because there's Pentagon reports, there's all kind of reports dating back twenty, thirty years. When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don't have the documentation, and I don't have a single study, I don't have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminum coated fiberglass by military aircraft. So there's a differentiation for me in putting my name or associating myself with something where I can't back it up. Now if anyone has direct proof, they've got university studies, if you've got documents, government documents, if you've got reports, then that makes a big difference. But right now, after ten years of research, I can't do it."
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: 3danimator2014
I will say that the Op has not done his research. Petersen has been debunked time after time
Even by herself lol.
It's not often you can debunk a thread by using the same person mentioned in the thread.
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: BO XIAN
The video is from 2007, and she isn't talking about chemtrails from planes.
Here's her in an interview in 2012
"We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs. And if we go to sue someone, we have to have enough rock solid evidence that is so tight to make a case so that we don't lose the case, and that we have many many people, in other words experts in various fields, to testify on our behalf. This mean university professors, this means people that can come and back up our statements, back up the studies, where we can prove that the jets for example reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth, they change the climate. And so what happens is, that when I see though, that we are talking about suing, ... who? In other words, I find that the direct proof to link up who's doing what ..., and also I can tell you that in ten years of research, other than aluminum coated fiberglass, chaff releases by the US Military, I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions. Now I can prove that the rocket programs in the United States are releasing trimethylaluminum, aluminum oxide, barium. I can prove the rocket programs in the United States are just coating us with toxic chemicals all the time. And these programs are listed at NASA, NOAA, the US Air Force, the US Navy, I mean there's tests going on all the time. The US Navy CARE program is a prime example. So I can prove, I have so many documents I couldn't even put them all on the internet, even if I tried, because there's Pentagon reports, there's all kind of reports dating back twenty, thirty years. When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don't have the documentation, and I don't have a single study, I don't have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminum coated fiberglass by military aircraft. So there's a differentiation for me in putting my name or associating myself with something where I can't back it up. Now if anyone has direct proof, they've got university studies, if you've got documents, government documents, if you've got reports, then that makes a big difference. But right now, after ten years of research, I can't do it."
I don't get it, do people just find one story/link/video and then just post? Does no one spend 5 f*cking minutes doing any research on what they are posting? And they get mad at US!
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: 3danimator2014
I don't get it, do people just find one story/link/video and then just post? Does no one spend 5 f*cking minutes doing any research on what they are posting? And they get mad at US!
It's obviously because we are paid shills.
Still waiting for my check though...
originally posted by: 3danimator2014
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: 3danimator2014
I will say that the Op has not done his research. Petersen has been debunked time after time
Even by herself lol.
It's not often you can debunk a thread by using the same person mentioned in the thread.
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: BO XIAN
The video is from 2007, and she isn't talking about chemtrails from planes.
Here's her in an interview in 2012
"We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs. And if we go to sue someone, we have to have enough rock solid evidence that is so tight to make a case so that we don't lose the case, and that we have many many people, in other words experts in various fields, to testify on our behalf. This mean university professors, this means people that can come and back up our statements, back up the studies, where we can prove that the jets for example reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth, they change the climate. And so what happens is, that when I see though, that we are talking about suing, ... who? In other words, I find that the direct proof to link up who's doing what ..., and also I can tell you that in ten years of research, other than aluminum coated fiberglass, chaff releases by the US Military, I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions. Now I can prove that the rocket programs in the United States are releasing trimethylaluminum, aluminum oxide, barium. I can prove the rocket programs in the United States are just coating us with toxic chemicals all the time. And these programs are listed at NASA, NOAA, the US Air Force, the US Navy, I mean there's tests going on all the time. The US Navy CARE program is a prime example. So I can prove, I have so many documents I couldn't even put them all on the internet, even if I tried, because there's Pentagon reports, there's all kind of reports dating back twenty, thirty years. When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don't have the documentation, and I don't have a single study, I don't have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminum coated fiberglass by military aircraft. So there's a differentiation for me in putting my name or associating myself with something where I can't back it up. Now if anyone has direct proof, they've got university studies, if you've got documents, government documents, if you've got reports, then that makes a big difference. But right now, after ten years of research, I can't do it."
Exactly, and i am willing to place a monetary bet with someone that none of the people who defended the Op or the Op himself will resurface here to admit they got it wrong.
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: 3danimator2014
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: 3danimator2014
I will say that the Op has not done his research. Petersen has been debunked time after time
Even by herself lol.
It's not often you can debunk a thread by using the same person mentioned in the thread.
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: BO XIAN
The video is from 2007, and she isn't talking about chemtrails from planes.
Here's her in an interview in 2012
"We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs. And if we go to sue someone, we have to have enough rock solid evidence that is so tight to make a case so that we don't lose the case, and that we have many many people, in other words experts in various fields, to testify on our behalf. This mean university professors, this means people that can come and back up our statements, back up the studies, where we can prove that the jets for example reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth, they change the climate. And so what happens is, that when I see though, that we are talking about suing, ... who? In other words, I find that the direct proof to link up who's doing what ..., and also I can tell you that in ten years of research, other than aluminum coated fiberglass, chaff releases by the US Military, I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions. Now I can prove that the rocket programs in the United States are releasing trimethylaluminum, aluminum oxide, barium. I can prove the rocket programs in the United States are just coating us with toxic chemicals all the time. And these programs are listed at NASA, NOAA, the US Air Force, the US Navy, I mean there's tests going on all the time. The US Navy CARE program is a prime example. So I can prove, I have so many documents I couldn't even put them all on the internet, even if I tried, because there's Pentagon reports, there's all kind of reports dating back twenty, thirty years. When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don't have the documentation, and I don't have a single study, I don't have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminum coated fiberglass by military aircraft. So there's a differentiation for me in putting my name or associating myself with something where I can't back it up. Now if anyone has direct proof, they've got university studies, if you've got documents, government documents, if you've got reports, then that makes a big difference. But right now, after ten years of research, I can't do it."
Exactly, and i am willing to place a monetary bet with someone that none of the people who defended the Op or the Op himself will resurface here to admit they got it wrong.
I'm no psychologist but would that be part of the cognitive dissonance that is so prevalent among the conspiracy community? They can't possibly be wrong so therefore they can't possibly admit that they are
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: 3danimator2014
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: 3danimator2014
I will say that the Op has not done his research. Petersen has been debunked time after time
Even by herself lol.
It's not often you can debunk a thread by using the same person mentioned in the thread.
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: BO XIAN
The video is from 2007, and she isn't talking about chemtrails from planes.
Here's her in an interview in 2012
"We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs. And if we go to sue someone, we have to have enough rock solid evidence that is so tight to make a case so that we don't lose the case, and that we have many many people, in other words experts in various fields, to testify on our behalf. This mean university professors, this means people that can come and back up our statements, back up the studies, where we can prove that the jets for example reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth, they change the climate. And so what happens is, that when I see though, that we are talking about suing, ... who? In other words, I find that the direct proof to link up who's doing what ..., and also I can tell you that in ten years of research, other than aluminum coated fiberglass, chaff releases by the US Military, I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions. Now I can prove that the rocket programs in the United States are releasing trimethylaluminum, aluminum oxide, barium. I can prove the rocket programs in the United States are just coating us with toxic chemicals all the time. And these programs are listed at NASA, NOAA, the US Air Force, the US Navy, I mean there's tests going on all the time. The US Navy CARE program is a prime example. So I can prove, I have so many documents I couldn't even put them all on the internet, even if I tried, because there's Pentagon reports, there's all kind of reports dating back twenty, thirty years. When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don't have the documentation, and I don't have a single study, I don't have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminum coated fiberglass by military aircraft. So there's a differentiation for me in putting my name or associating myself with something where I can't back it up. Now if anyone has direct proof, they've got university studies, if you've got documents, government documents, if you've got reports, then that makes a big difference. But right now, after ten years of research, I can't do it."
Exactly, and i am willing to place a monetary bet with someone that none of the people who defended the Op or the Op himself will resurface here to admit they got it wrong.
I'm no psychologist but would that be part of the cognitive dissonance that is so prevalent among the conspiracy community? They can't possibly be wrong so therefore they can't possibly admit that they are
originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Exactly, and i am willing to place a monetary bet with someone that none of the people who defended the Op or the Op himself will resurface here to admit they got it wrong.
originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Vector99
The article in the OP SOUNDED reasonable, to me.
originally posted by: BO XIAN
originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Exactly, and i am willing to place a monetary bet with someone that none of the people who defended the Op or the Op himself will resurface here to admit they got it wrong.
.
You would be WRONG
In the last 10 years, I've probably admitted I was wrong on ATS many times more than the next runner-up.
It's OK for me to admit I'm wrong. I know I'm human. I know I'm flawed. I know my perspective is not perfect. I know my analyses and conclusions are not 100% right 100% of the time.
I earnestly work to avoid being arrogant, haughty, smug, self-righteous and/or prissy.
originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: 3danimator2014
What is the origin of such PERSONAL hostility?
When did I personally pee in your cereal?
Curious.