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.
A couple of jets can sometimes be seen making a trail and turning to make the next back again until between the two the grid is formed.
DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Char-Lee
A couple of jets can sometimes be seen making a trail and turning to make the next back again until between the two the grid is formed.
Whatever you just said there, can you record it on video?
I have not watched alone and yet all the witnesses in the world would never matter to anyone who simply has a view they don't want to question.
DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Char-Lee
I have not watched alone and yet all the witnesses in the world would never matter to anyone who simply has a view they don't want to question.
Now that's plain rude. You really have no idea what my view even is.
Whether I post or not, I tend to question everything.
In this context, discussion of “geoengineering”—roughly the “deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change” (Shepherd et al. 2009)—has become a hot topic. Proposed geoengineering approaches fall into two broad categories: those that attempt to limit solar radiation (termed solar radiation management, SRM) and those that attempt to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (carbon drawdown and removal, CDR). A landmark study conducted by the United Kingdom’s Royal Society1 in 2009 concluded that “geoengineering is likely to be technically feasible, and could substantially reduce the costs and risks of climate change”.2 However, the report also maintained that not all proposed methods are likely to be equally effective, and that there is a need for further research to understand the feasibility, climate impacts and social dimensions (including ethics, law and governance) of proposed geoengineering schemes. One specific recommendation of the report was the need to “develop a code of practice for geoengineering research and provide recommendations to the international scientific community for a voluntary research governance framework … [that] should provide guidance and transparency for geoengineering research and apply to researchers working in the public, private and commercial sectors.”
mrthumpy
reply to post by Char-Lee
Just had a quick look on Flightradar24.com and I see AMX58 Tijuana - Tokyo, AAL176 Tokyo - Dallas and KAL31 Seoul - Dallas all crossing the north California coast
network dude
I am sorry, you are incorrect. It has already been stated that planes do not fly over northern CA.
Unless they are spraying.
You are rude to assume that real proof wouldn't be enough,
mrthumpy
reply to post by Char-Lee
Just had a quick look on Flightradar24.com and I see AMX58 Tijuana - Tokyo, AAL176 Tokyo - Dallas and KAL31 Seoul - Dallas all crossing the north California coast
Char-Lee
mrthumpy
reply to post by Char-Lee
Just had a quick look on Flightradar24.com and I see AMX58 Tijuana - Tokyo, AAL176 Tokyo - Dallas and KAL31 Seoul - Dallas all crossing the north California coast
Please look at their paths they do not fly out to sea and toward land from sea making squares.
So to be rude again it is generally just a joke and laughing matter when any witness gives and account.edit on 24-12-2013 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)
Char-Lee
reply to post by waynos
You are rude to assume that real proof wouldn't be enough,
Thanks for reaffirming I am rude...admitted already.
Two jets crossing and turning until completed I have no video this was brookings Or last year. We watched the whole process and I put it on ATS..no video..usual responses.
network dude
Char-Lee
mrthumpy
reply to post by Char-Lee
Just had a quick look on Flightradar24.com and I see AMX58 Tijuana - Tokyo, AAL176 Tokyo - Dallas and KAL31 Seoul - Dallas all crossing the north California coast
Please look at their paths they do not fly out to sea and toward land from sea making squares.
So to be rude again it is generally just a joke and laughing matter when any witness gives and account.edit on 24-12-2013 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)
right, because if you did film it and back that up with data, you would have "evidence" for the chemtrail fantasy. And since there isn't any of that yet, you would have quite the holy grail. It's a shame you don't have one of those Obama phones. They have a camera on them.
waynos
Char-Lee
reply to post by waynos
You are rude to assume that real proof wouldn't be enough,
Thanks for reaffirming I am rude...admitted already.
No problem. Happy to oblige.
Two jets crossing and turning until completed I have no video this was brookings Or last year. We watched the whole process and I put it on ATS..no video..usual responses.
So you saw it once? As I posted earlier, once could be for anything. Spraying is supposed to be a continuous operation so you would be able to photograph it, if not video it, several times. Sadly a year ago is not possible to trace.
What about the pictures you posted earlier in the thread from a few days before (if I understood you correctly). Could you post the location and the time and date from the image data?edit on 24-12-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)