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.

 

Nothing in chemtrails... yeahhh riiiiight...Photos

page: 24
38
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


First thing is that there is no such thing as “Commanded Airspace” There is however: Class A-G Airspace, Restricted Airspace, Prohibited Airspace, Military Training Routes, Military Operations Areas, Warning Areas, and Alert Areas.... Never heard of “Commanded Airspace” though. “bird feet” sounds a lot more like something that is left by planes dropping ECM, then anything chemical; most likely chaff which will show up on radar. Also if the planes where separated by 1000 feet separation limits and in an MOA (Military Operating Area), then they were not going A) head to head or, B) at the same altitude, and C) no other planes should have been in the area. That whole article is full of holes and improper terminology, if its even true, then the guy misunderstood what was going on.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthTellist
 


You say stuff like "it's my opinion" then "those of us who know about chemtrails" in the same post. Don't you see how you switch from it being merely your opinion to it being a fact? How can it be both, when there is no evidence to support your claims?

You clearly have no idea what you are on about. You've seen something you don't understand, and your imagination has gone on some incredible paranoid bent to piece together that which you do know into some kind of explanation, regardless of supporting evidence.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


Nowhere in that document does it say that the Barium was released via airplane, however. They could have dropped barium from containers under a weather balloon for all we know.


[edit on 11/17/2008 by defcon5]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Good discussion here, guys.
I appreciate everyone maintaining a sense of decorum when debating the topic. Remember, discuss the material without attacking the member.

And just briefly, I'd like to call your attention to a sample from the new Above Top Secret book by Jim Marrs, this one re chemtrails.

If you haven't checked out the book and the different topics in there, it's definitely worth a look.

Carry on.



[edit on 11/17/2008 by yeahright]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


I'd like to read the rest of that chapter as from that brief preview, it looks like he's saying they are real, and he even states that no-one in authority is talking about it, and he's not mentioned any evidence for their existence (yet). I'm sure he's not on the chemtrail bandwagon, as if he is, well, I definitely won't be buying that book!



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by yeahright
 


I'd like to read the rest of that chapter as from that brief preview, it looks like he's saying they are real, and he even states that no-one in authority is talking about it, and he's not mentioned any evidence for their existence (yet). I'm sure he's not on the chemtrail bandwagon, as if he is, well, I definitely won't be buying that book!


So you wouldn't buy the book simply because part of it may speak of things you don't believe?

Deny Ignorance!



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by interestedalways
 


No, it's not that at all! I think you misunderstood my point. I'd shy away from a book - any book - based purely on speculation, that presents it as fact. That goes for science textbooks, religious books, phone books, recipe books - you name it.

If one wants to deny ignorance, one has to embrace evidence. Speaking of evidence, there is a fantastic summary of what contrails are, and what chemtrails aren't, in this thread.

[edit on 17/11/08 by dave420]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


You could be right...a balloon did it. The point is barium was released in the skies over Peru.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Yup..A gem. The report was on the acceptable levels within our environment. As I stated earlier I am aware that Aluminum is all around us, however elevated amounts in rain water can not be traced. In the Homestead link you did not understand the point. They may have not been elevated levels for a larger metropolitan are, they were though for the Alberta area.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthTellist

Chemtrails are not from regular commercial aviation, they are a secret operation which is criminal in my opinion because it may use my tax dollars on the unethical modification of the climate. I do not accept "weather modification" as a normal activity in my world. I reject it, no matter how many posts you throw at me saying "weather modification is ok".


See, you're at it again. Are we talking weather modificati0onm or chemtrails? Or do you think chemtrails are what the rest of us call weather modification and therefore emphatically not peristent contrails


I personally don;t agree with weather modification. Especially since in the USA especially it;s carried out by private firms on behalf of whoever is willing to pay them, with little regard for possible consequences.

However, such activities are not visible from the ground. Indeed, none of the suggested explanations for chemtrails include any reasoning as to why they should be visible from the ground. Whereas alleged chemtrails appear and behave 100% identical to normal contrails.

Go figure



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


All I will add is to commend 'defcon5' for bringing actual facts to the discussion!!!

Here is what I sometimes see happening...people, usually laymen, contrive made-up terms....such as 'Commanded Airspace'....or 'chemtrail'....and the viral nature of the interent allows these nonsense terms to take off.

What is troubling is when I see level heads attempt to explain to these 'laymen', using logic and experience, only to be derided by name-calling, and pigeon-holing by some others who tend to stubbornly cling to their out-moded notions.

Not sure this makes any sense, I'm not a very good writer. BUT, when I see the motto of ATS, I have to take it to heart every time --- 'Defy Ignorance'. (I know, I know....it's 'deny'....I changed one letter...so sue me!)



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Didn't Oz just make ANOTHER thread for you guys?

I am pleased to see the members here not taking the bait!




posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by interestedalways
 


Oz making another thread would indeed fall within the pattern.

Here's my suggestion regarding this topic, the next time chemtrails are over a major, or minor, metropolitan area, people should film and document them, and then compare the flightpaths with official data for civilian air traffic, and also get ATC reports on the planes in the air from FOIA (in the US or it's equivalents in the western world), then form a dossier and upload it to various sources as well as a torrent, so it is in effect distributed beyond suppression techniques abilities to repress it.

Then there will be one mass sighting which will be undebunkable, because it's truth.

And then, just maybe, these people will shut up, as they well should, because as a growing number of people know from personal experience(s), there is indeed population spraying happening for reasons undivulged or supressed.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian

Here's my suggestion regarding this topic, the next time chemtrails are over a major, or minor, metropolitan area, people should film and document them, and then compare the flightpaths with official data for civilian air traffic, and also get ATC reports on the planes in the air from FOIA (in the US or it's equivalents in the western world), then form a dossier and upload it to various sources as well as a torrent, so it is in effect distributed beyond suppression techniques abilities to repress it.


They should also obtain meteorological data, of course. But basically this is what I've been saying for a long time. Yet all we get are more pictures and accounts of normal contrails.

However, is there any evidence that a chemtrail would be expected to be visible from the ground?

Maybe the reason all chemtrails look and act like normal contrails is because they are normal contrails. Unless chemtrails are comprised of water ice, why would we ever see them?

Maybe the illusionist is performing a sleight of hand?



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


Zeph....although I vehemently disagree with your stance re: 'chemtrails' I gave you a star because I agree. The 'truth' must come out.

I am of one opinion, you are of another. Yet, we discuss in a civil manner, and I think that's great.

Zeph, I do not believe you have ever used sarcasm to attempt to impugn my bonafides, I know I have never attacked you.

Still, though, I must ask....for the record, Zeph....what do you know, other than Internet reports, of 'chemtrails'????



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


Here's the thing, these type of people goto school and are taught what is and what isn't without questioning it. I don't blame them anymore. Unless they have an agenda of course.

But basically until the new "experts of clouds" generation actually start to question what they are taught, there will continue to be a mind set that this can only be this, and that is because we 'learned' this at our Universities ect.

Repeaters are just that. You can actually apply this to many topics on this ATS board. Everyone of course believes what they "know" because they don't know any better. Think the world is flat era. Well the chemtrails are contrails to them NO MATTER WHAT! Left brain logic will always dictate that to them. For that is who they are.

Chemtrails are real.

wZn



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthTellist
 


You say that Evergreen is laying chemtrails. Here's a few minor problems with that theory. There is ONE 747 supertanker out there. Every person that says that chemtrail planes fly over them, says that the chemtrails look exactly like contrails, and even come from the engines.

Here's the Evergreen supertanker dumping:





Maybe you can explain to me how that can POSSIBLY be mistaken for a regular contrail?



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by dave420
 


*You are clearly Feigning ignorance of the vast amounts of relevant literature and research that is available.

Spraying Heavy Metals To Stop Global Warming


J.D. Aber and K.J. Nadelhoffer, "Nitrogen Saturation in Northern Forest Ecosystems." Bioscience, 39 (1989) pages

378-386

American Geophysical Union, "Jet contrails to be significant climate factor by 2050," AGU press release no. 99-19,

6/21/99

R.B. Ames and W.C. Malm, "Estimating the Contribution of the Mohave Coal-fired Power Plant Emissions to Atmospheric

Extinction at Grand Canyon National Park." In Visual Air Quality" Aerosols and Global Radiation Balance, Air and

Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, Pa., 683-697, 1997.

Marcus Dalton, "Chemtrails Are Over Las Vegas." Las Vegas Tribune, vol. 7 Issue 3, 8/19/05

S.L. Baughcum, "Subsonic aircraft emission inventories, In:Atmospheric Effects of Aviation:First Report of the

Subsonic Assessment Project." NASA RP-1385, pp. 15-29, 1996

Bill Gallagher, "Chemical Aurora Keyhole Surveillance." Arizona Indymedia, May 2004

Laura Kelly, "Mysterious powder shrouds area." The Alpenhorn News, Feb. 2006

D.M. Hunten, "Residence Times of Aerosols and Gases in the Stratosphere." Geophysical Research Letters 2(1): 26-27,

1975

A.C. Mueller, "The Effects of Particulates from Solid Rocket Motors Fired in Space." Advances in Space Research 5

(2): 77-86, 1985.

U. Schumann, "In Situ Observations of Particles in Jet Aircraft Exhausts and Contrails for Different Sulfur-

Containing Fuels." Journal of Geographical Research, Vol. 101, Issue D3, 1996.

Weather mod. patent Numbers


6569393-5/27/03-Method and Device for Cleaning the Atmosphere.
6520425-2/18/03-Process and Apparatus for the Production and aerial dispersion of Nanofibers.
6412416-7/2/02-Propellant-Based Aerosol Generation Devices and Method.
6315213-11/13/01-Method of Modifying Weather.
6263744-7/24/01-Automated Mobility-Classified-Aerosol Detector.
6056203-5/2/00-Method and Apparatus for Modifying Supercooled Clouds.
6030506-2/29/00-Preparation of Independently Generated Highly Reactive Chemical Species.
5984239-11/16/99-Weather Modification by Artificial Satellite.
5762298-6/9/98-Use of Artificial Satellites in Earth Orbits Adaptively to Modify the Effect that Solar Radiation

Would Otherwise Have on Earth's Weather.
5628455-5/13/97-Method and Apparatus for Modification of Supercooled Fog.
5286979-2/15/94-Process for Absorbing Ultraviolet Radiation Using Dispersed Melanin.
5104069-4/114/92-Apparatus and Method for Ejecting Matter from an Aircraft.
5038664-8/13/94-Method for Producing a Shell of Relativisitic Particles at an Altitude Above the Earth's Surface.
4999637-3/12/91-Creation of Artificial Ionization Clouds Above the Earth.
4873928-10/17/89-Nuclear-Sized Explosions without Radiation.
4686605-8/11/87-Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth's Atmosphere, Ionosphere, and/or Magnetosphere


[edit on 17-11-2008 by TruthTellist]


I do enjoy it when people copy and paste things they obviously either didn't read, or don't understand what is written. Let me help you with this:

Your first line on nitrogen saturation in northern forests: Directly from the source:

The chronic deposition of nitrogen from the atmosphere is a recent stress to New England forests resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels.

There we we go.

On another one: Contrails to be climate factor by 2050? No brainer for someone familiar with meteorology: Contrails are clouds. Clouds reflect sunlight but also keeps heat in. More air travel = more contrails = slightly warmer. Duh. This was shown on 9/11/01 when nationwide, there was a greater range of temps from 9/11-9/14. The reasons are obvious why.

From what I can tell, a good majority of these "sources" concern mostly air travel, or fossil fuel burning effects, or already known non-sinister patents for weather modification WHICH is not a secret as a number of countries are doing this. Do you ever bother to read them yourself or not?

[edit on 11/17/2008 by GenRadek]

[edit on 11/17/2008 by GenRadek]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I think all on this thread need to start adding a few things up. This link csat.au.af.mil... an Air Force mission statement of using weather as a weapon. It also presents an eerily similar mission statement to that of HARRP. Seems a very credible source. What needs to be questioned on this thread is...Has it begun?



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 




I think all on this thread need to start adding a few things up. This link csat.au.af.mil... an Air Force mission statement of using weather as a weapon. It also presents an eerily similar mission statement to that of HARRP. Seems a very credible source. What needs to be questioned on this thread is...Has it begun?



2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.

This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.

This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities, is unclassified, and is cleared for public release.


You turn this into an Air Force mission statement? I guess you really don't read what you post.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Phage]




top topics



 
38
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join