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.
It is interesting to watch the numbers of scientists and other specialists debate the specifics of dispersal of a few different agents by high altitude aircraft (what would look identical to chemtrails if one were to see a plane doing what they discuss and model) vs. the very determined push back for literally having public discussion of the concept without many layers and levels of proof bordering on standards of a courtroom.
but since there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that supports any believers claims, then we are automatically shot down with the whole "contrails" rambling.
ETA: By the way, answering those three questions in a clear, concise manner would be a great start to a conversation...
Chemtrails- What are they?
originally posted by: totallackey
a reply to: Wrabbit2000
It is interesting to watch the numbers of scientists and other specialists debate the specifics of dispersal of a few different agents by high altitude aircraft (what would look identical to chemtrails if one were to see a plane doing what they discuss and model) vs. the very determined push back for literally having public discussion of the concept without many layers and levels of proof bordering on standards of a courtroom.
And here is a fine sample of mis-characterization...come on wrabbit...
Something written about a possibility...which no one here denies...certainly the topic has been written about...
vs.
The very determined bloviating about how the subject of a proposal would actually APPEAR to the earth-bound eyeballer...
wrabbit, how do you freaking know what the ideas postulated about in a proposal would look like in the sky?
Answer from chemtrailer: "Because I can."
They surely do.
This is the problem, anybody who is suspicious of a covert programme of aerial spraying, has a lot of digging to do
At the moment there is no evidence of such a thing. You are one of the few who does not insist that contrails are evidence of spraying. The overwhelming majority of contrail deniers in this forum do claim them to be.
but for those who say, "this is stupid, there is no such thing" are in the same ballpark as those that look at the sky and say "that's a chemtrail"
This is another vote for the question in the thread title "Chemtrails- What are they?" to be answered before any others. It's difficult to have a reasonable discussion on an undefined and most likely from the utter lack of evidence, nonexistent activity.
In the ATS exclusive clip, Jesse is asking the ATS audience for thoughts and information about Chemtrails. Are they harmful? Is there a cover-up?
originally posted by: smurfy
originally posted by: totallackey
a reply to: Wrabbit2000
It is interesting to watch the numbers of scientists and other specialists debate the specifics of dispersal of a few different agents by high altitude aircraft (what would look identical to chemtrails if one were to see a plane doing what they discuss and model) vs. the very determined push back for literally having public discussion of the concept without many layers and levels of proof bordering on standards of a courtroom.
And here is a fine sample of mis-characterization...come on wrabbit...
Something written about a possibility...which no one here denies...certainly the topic has been written about...
vs.
The very determined bloviating about how the subject of a proposal would actually APPEAR to the earth-bound eyeballer...
wrabbit, how do you freaking know what the ideas postulated about in a proposal would look like in the sky?
Answer from chemtrailer: "Because I can."
Wrabbit knows as well as the rest of us, that looking at a jet's plume proves nothing, he's said so in the past. Your idea of a chemtrailer's response is pretty much out of time for most people.[/quote]
No...absolutely not...
If Wrabbit knew better, then he would not have said this:
It is interesting to watch the numbers of scientists and other specialists debate the specifics of dispersal of a few different agents by high altitude aircraft (what would look identical to chemtrails if one were to see a plane doing what they discuss and model)
Do you see that? Read it very carefully.
This is the problem, anybody who is suspicious of a covert programme of aerial spraying, has a lot of digging to do, but for those who say, "this is stupid, there is no such thing" are in the same ballpark as those that look at the sky and say "that's a chemtrail"
It is not a problem. You want to be suspicious? Fine, go ahead.
But do not for one second think a person who knows what contrails look like is anywhere near the same area code, let alone the same ballpark as a suspicious person who thinks chemtrails are real. Speculation, tin-foil hattery, and outright lying, are not the same as scientific proof.edit on 18-6-2014 by totallackey because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: smurfy
originally posted by: totallackey
a reply to: Wrabbit2000
It is interesting to watch the numbers of scientists and other specialists debate the specifics of dispersal of a few different agents by high altitude aircraft (what would look identical to chemtrails if one were to see a plane doing what they discuss and model) vs. the very determined push back for literally having public discussion of the concept without many layers and levels of proof bordering on standards of a courtroom.
And here is a fine sample of mis-characterization...come on wrabbit...
Something written about a possibility...which no one here denies...certainly the topic has been written about...
vs.
The very determined bloviating about how the subject of a proposal would actually APPEAR to the earth-bound eyeballer...
wrabbit, how do you freaking know what the ideas postulated about in a proposal would look like in the sky?
Answer from chemtrailer: "Because I can."
Wrabbit knows as well as the rest of us, that looking at a jet's plume proves nothing, he's said so in the past. Your idea of a chemtrailer's response is pretty much out of time for most people.
This is the problem, anybody who is suspicious of a covert programme of aerial spraying, has a lot of digging to do, but for those who say, "this is stupid, there is no such thing" are in the same ballpark as those that look at the sky and say "that's a chemtrail"
And here is a fine sample of mis-characterization...come on wrabbit...
wrabbit, how do you freaking know what the ideas postulated about in a proposal would look like in the sky?
Statement by chemtrailer: "There is a trail coming from behind that plane...some climate panel wrote about this being a possible solution to climate change...therefore, that must be a chemtrail."
Why would the action of a aerosol dispersant (i.e., chemtrail) look EXACTLY like a contrail?
Why would any dispersed chemical from a jet look EXACTLY like a contrail?
How can you tell the chemical makeup of the trail from 7 miles away?"
Forgive me if I label this type of reasoning as the pure, unadulterated, bull# that it is...
What would Sulphur or Carbon particulate that has been discussed in public reports look like? Dunno.... I give my best guess. It's a discussion forum for things like that.
Maybe here?
Would they look "exactly" like a contrail? That's news...but I'd love to hear where you'd get that impression?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
It is interesting to watch the numbers of scientists and other specialists debate the specifics of dispersal of a few different agents by high altitude aircraft (what would look identical to chemtrails if one were to see a plane doing what they discuss and model)
originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
Sulfur and carbon are in all jet exhaust.
Wrabbit knows as well as the rest of us, that looking at a jet's plume proves nothing, he's said so in the past. Your idea of a chemtrailer's response is pretty much out of time for most people.
Have you ever noticed planes flying at apparent cruise altitude leaving no trail at all? It would look like that. Sulfur and carbon are in all jet exhaust.
Maybe here?
(emphasis on what the paragraph was written to note)
It is interesting to watch the numbers of scientists and other specialists debate the specifics of dispersal of a few different agents by high altitude aircraft (what would look identical to chemtrails if one were to see a plane doing what they discuss and model) vs. the very determined push back for literally having public discussion of the concept without many layers and levels of proof bordering on standards of a courtroom.