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.
The Moon does not exist!
This is no lie. Until recently, I, too, believed in the traditional, establishment view of the moon. But any thinking person, untainted by the biases imposed on us by the controlled media, will have no choice but to reach the conclusion I did once faced with the facts described in this account.
Your qupte there is a fine example of how out of control this is, and how it veers well wide of the mark, into speculation and complete, unadulterated and unconnected topics.
AND...they (the passenger flights) CANNOT just 'dump' fuel overboard!!! I've already shown you that the majority of passenger airplanes can't dump AT ALL!!! And, they need the darned stuff to run the engines! AND, it's expensive, and not wasted like that, unless it's an emergency! What part of this is so difficult to comprehend? This is getting ridiculous, trying to explain reality to those who cannot bother to learn.
Originally posted by Americanist
You're about half a century behind the time. The current events of today were mapped out (since the mid 50's) in writing. I made mention of gene mutation to put things in context. Same with plasma weaponry. These type projects are undoubtedly tied in with manipulating air space.
Therefore, immediately after the Sept. 11th attacks, Boeing persuaded Congress to approve a plan under which the Air Force would lease 100 new wide-body Boeing jets for use as refueling tankers for six years, at a cost of millions a year for each plane until the end of the lease, at which time the Air Force would buy the planes outright.
I believe those were modified 767's. I'm sure you'll correct me, if I'm wrong.
No your not wrong. And here is the proof: scroll down to the "Unethical Conduct" Heading.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
variant of dafte, foolish
Still in use in various parts of the english speaking world as sarcasm. Glad to know I sent you off to the dictionary though.
Current scientific consensus holds that Morgellons is not a new disorder and is instead a new and misleading name for known illnesses. Most doctors, including dermatologists and psychiatrists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis, (**) although some health professionals believe that Morgellons disease is a specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research.
....
Despite the lack of evidence that Morgellons is a novel or distinct condition and the absence of any agreed set of diagnostic symptoms, the Morgellons Research Foundation (*) and self-diagnosed
In 2001, according to Mary Leitao, her then two-year-old son developed sores under his lip and began to complain of "bugs." Leitao, who graduated with a BS in Biology, and worked for five years at Boston hospitals as a lab technician before becoming a stay-at-home mother, says she examined the sores with her son's toy microscope and discovered red, blue, black, and white fibers.
...Hmmmmm, very interesting, a psychology magazine...
Psychology Today
reports that Leitao last consulted an unnamed Johns Hopkins infectious disease specialist who after reviewing her son's records refused to see him, suggesting Leitao herself might suffer from "Munchausen's by proxy, a psychiatric syndrome in which a parent pretends a child is sick or makes him sick to get attention from the medical system." This opinion of a potential psychological disorder, according to Leitao, was shared by several medical professionals she sought out.
She chose the name Morgellons disease (with a hard g) from a description of an illness in the monograph A Letter to a Friend by Sir Thomas Browne, in 1690...
...wherein Browne describes several medical conditions in his experience, including "that endemial distemper of children in Languedoc, called the morgellons, wherein they critically break out with harsh hairs on their backs."
In May 2006, a CBS news segment on Morgellons aired in Southern California. The same day the Los Angeles County Department of Health services issued a statement saying, "No credible medical or public health association has verified the existence or diagnosis of 'Morgellons Disease'," and "at this time there is no reason for individuals to panic over unsubstantiated reports of this disease."
The first article to propose Morgellons as a new disease in a scientific journal was a review article co-authored by members of the MRF and published in 2006 by the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology.[26] An article in the San Francisco Chronicle reported, "There have been no clinical studies" (of Morgellons disease).
The tanker received the designation KC-767A in 2002 after being selected by the US Air Force initially to replace older KC-135Es. In December 2003, the contract was frozen and later canceled due to corruption allegations.
The tanker is currently being developed for use by the Italian and Japanese air forces, who have ordered four tankers each. Financing of the development of the aircraft, over $1 billion, has been borne by Boeing, in that it hoped to get major orders from the U.S. Air Force.
Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by weedwhacker
In a past life, you were probably one of those people who screamed heretic, quoted from the Bible, and then whacked off someone's head.
Originally posted by bsbray11
The funny things about heretics and those with their eyes opened, is that they are always the persecuted minority.
The ideas that the greatest amount of people unthinkingly take for granted, are always the ones that turn out to have been the stupidest. Whether it be thinking the Sun revolves around the Earth or that everything is made of atoms.
Masses of people thinking something = status quo. And their numbers give them so much confidence, all the confidence they personally might need, that they will die believing what they believe.
I am never satisfied that I know the whole story
I have never once been wrong.
Compare that with someone who already thinks they know it all, who is bound to be wrong every single time.
Who is challenging the status quo here?
Originally posted by CHRLZ
Now here, much information has been given about contrails. It is well known and accepted science. In fact people who make ridiculous claims like 'contrails shouldn't persist', simply reveal their utter ignorance of what has gone before. If contrails didn't persist, THERE WOULD BE NO CLOUDS.
If I need to explain that, then there is no hope of having a sensible discussion - such ignorance should be shunned, just as you would shun someones claim that your computer is actually driven by leprechauns.
And what if masses of people happen to be correct, like those who believe that the Earth does revolve around the Sun from an external frame of reference, or that things are in fact made of atoms, or that jet engines at high altitudes will make contrails if the conditions are right, and that those contrails will not only persist but grow into cirrus formations, again if the conditions are right.
Compare that with someone who already thinks they know it all, who is bound to be wrong every single time.
But wait, YOU just said -"I have never once been wrong"...
See below in regard to just one of the pictures you posted.. "never wrong", huh????
Who is challenging the status quo here?
Certainly not you. All you are doing is handwaving, avoiding contrail formation facts and providing tenuous links, unsupported anecdotes, debunked images.. does this plane (the "Evergreen Supertanker") look familiar, and tell us - what is it doing?:
www.wired.com...
You're never wrong, huh?
That's what real researchers do... you should try it sometime.
Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't remember where I said contrails shouldn't persist, can you point it out in one of my posts for me?
And I never said exhaust couldn't do that by itself. But neither of those things negate the possibility of other chemicals being released into the air by whatever means for whatever reason. You don't know what exactly I'm arguing because you just assumed I was saying two things that I never posted. All I'm saying is that you people can't really debunk anything as far as the reality of chemicals being dumped into the air because it would amount to proving a very difficult negative.
How can I be wrong if I'm saying that I don't know? Are you saying I'm lying and exaggerating my own ignorance?
Again you are either hallucinating or responding to the wrong person. See above. I never posted that link.
Well if you get out of your house once in a while
And there is little to no accountability in most cases as to what these planes are doing while they are flying around in the air.
Now I've already told you I wasn't making all the claims you were ranting about. So those would be "straw men."
All I ever said was you don't know what in the hell is being put in the air by anybody, because you don't.
And if you think you do know all that, then I'd like to see you prove the negative, that no one is putting any chemicals into the air in any way for any reason, because that would be one hell of a proof.
Originally posted by CHRLZ
Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't remember where I said contrails shouldn't persist, can you point it out in one of my posts for me?
I didn't say it was you, so have a guess, who would be the next likeliest person...
Hint - perhaps the subject of the OP?
So what is the point of your argument? None of the debunkers have said it is impossible to chemicals to be dumped into the air. Indeed, every jet engine puts out small amounts of pollutants. So does every car, and it would be possible to fit a lot of cars/vans/trucks with chemical delivery systems (and a hell of a lot more controllable and efficient, not to mention more clandestine..). But I have no evidence for such a thing. (yes, that was an analogy..)
YOU said that the Evergreen tanker was cloud seeding. Do I need to quote you and repost the image? (see below, obviously you do)
You were wrong. That's W R O N G. Go on, say it. It's good for the soul.
Again you are either hallucinating or responding to the wrong person. See above. I never posted that link.
Oh, rly?? OK, here's the post:
Earlier post by bsbray
and here's the picture YOU posted.
It's very obviously the Evergreen tanker, a FIREFIGHTING aircraft, as shown by my link here:
www.wired.com...
Is this getting through yet???? Your research skills are coming into deep question... along with your short term memory.
Well if you get out of your house once in a while
Observation is worthwhile, but only truly useful if you have a background in aviation and meteorology and/or the willingness to do some proper research (that would be at places other than Youtube and snake-oil sites that are selling books and videos).
And there is little to no accountability in most cases as to what these planes are doing while they are flying around in the air.
Still haven't managed to open up the flightaware site, eh?
flightaware.com...
Horse - water...
Now I've already told you I wasn't making all the claims you were ranting about. So those would be "straw men."
No, those would be... WHAT THE THREAD IS ABOUT.
All I ever said was you don't know what in the hell is being put in the air by anybody, because you don't.
And yet YOU are the one who posted several pictures and got some of them completely wrong. I think my record here is a lot better than yours, but I'll let the audience decide.
And then maybe we might get less idiots posting worthless videos of contrails on youtube, and scamming clowns like Griffin might be prevented from ripping off the gullible.
Originally posted by bsbray11
That's the first time I've ever heard of someone responding to another person without even mentioning their name anywhere, and right after responding specifically to me.
Exactly. And that's all I'm bringing to the thread, and reminding people.
In that post I am asking how you could tell just by looking at the images what they were dropping.
Here's another example of cloud seeding
(image)
Another one, more obvious this time
(image of firefighting aircraft)
All the images I posted were of aircraft dropping various things from the air from a Google image search for "cloud seeding."
Right, but that's not the same picture you just claimed I posted in your last post
Yeah, people who sell books and videos are the scum of the earth.
Not to be confused with our intelligence agencies, military industrial complex, big pharma, etc.
Well in the future when you're not responding directly to me can you please clarify that? Instead of ranting off and then saying "Oh that wasn't addressed to you."
"None of the debunkers have said it is impossible to chemicals to be dumped into the air." That means the same thing as it's possible, which means that whether or not it actually happened, we don't know.
So for the record you just think this guy's making everything up to make money off of gullible people. Sounds like a pretty serious charge. You know if you had evidence of that, you could take him to court!