The Black Death and Chemtrails from UFO's

ArMap, at this point IM not sure whether you are an ATS moderator or an dis-info agent. Maybe both?

Call me crazy, but, while at first glance your posts and replies seem articulate and well thought out, after more careful reading I have noticed 2 things.

1. They rarely make sense as compelling arguments in regards to what your are trying to dispute.


2. You have a way of making your PERSONAL OPINIONS sound like facts that have been publicly accepted and are written in stone.

There seems to be a pattern im noticing here. Posters who cannot dispute or debate a certain piece of information that someone has posted, seem to instead go for weaker posts that have flaws in them, and then concentrate on discrediting that particular poster.

Why is it important what the aerial phenomena were called? Who cares if they were called bolides or comets?

The key issue here is that SOMETHING was reported in the SKY prior to the PLAGUES and that this was not an isolated incident for that era.

Why not focus on the core topic here? Why nit pick words and minor mistakes as to AERIAL PHENOMENA being described as comets or bolides?

All this does is ultimately derails the thread, and also makes posters weary and tired on debating technicalities instead of the core issues.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by GeminiSky]

Originally posted by warequalsmurder
The sources were provided on this very page! Look a few posts up! Go purchase their books and knock yourself out.

Things would be much better if I could buy all the books I want, but unfortunately, life doesn't work that way.

And if you don't want to make the trip to England for some of these manuscripts that you keep crying about than how can you hold others like Bramley to present them for you after he went to the trouble to cite them in the first place? He cited his sources and then I cited those sources for you and the reader. If this ain't good enough for you than you need to buy those books or make that trip and stop squaking.

First of all, I don't have the money to make a trip to England, and even if I had I wouldn't do it before knowing if what I was looking for was there or not.

Second, I am not crying about any manuscripts, I just want to get closer to the original sources.

And I've seen no evidence to support your claim that bolides were used more often than comets but let's just drop this one in the interests of peace.

You're right, that was just a subjective opinion, and I don't have any problem of being proved wrong (or to find myself to be wrong).

This is a very odd response that I don't think does your argument much service. But for the sake of clarity, please provide us some examples of where he made it impossible to have faith in any testimony when witnesses called it a comet.

How can I provide examples of my opinion?

I said that to me it looked like a way of influencing people, that's only my opinion. Maybe at the third time I can make myself understood.

When he says «It is true that some reported "comets" were probably just that: comets. Some may also have been small meteors or fireballs (large blazing meteors).» isn't that implying that they wouldn't use a different name for different, known things, like meteors, but instead would call everything a comet? What we can read on the "Cronica universale de suoi tempi" shows that (at least this writer) knew the difference between a comet (stella comata, star with a tail) and a meteor.

Then, when he writes «On the other hand, it is important to note that almost any unusual object in the sky was called a "comet."» and gives as an example a sighting in which they call it comet but explain the difference between that and a common comet and even made some illustrations, to me, that means that even if they called it a comet, a meteor or a bolide, if it was unusual, that would be the most important information they would report.

Finally, when he writes «This leads us to wonder how many other ancient "comets" were actually similar rocketlike objects.», in my opinion, that sentence is almost the same as saying that the fact people call the things they saw by a specific name doesn't mean that they knew what they were seeing, and that's why I think that is a sentence that may have been written to help sway people to his point of view, something quite common in books and texts about specific topics.

That's not our fault. It's yours for not obtaining the additional verification that you think that you need.

I must be writing very bad English, you give a completely different meaning to many of the things I write.

I didn't said that it was your (either singular or plural) fault, I only said that I haven't seen that yet, with no hidden meanings, that's not my style.

And until you do just that perhaps you should stop trying to criticize the guy for his investigations. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?
The man quoted the source that used the word "comet". I've seen no proof to the contrary that he was lying about this testimony. But you'll need to just go ahead and prove me wrong if you don't buy it on the simple reason that you haven't read his source yet.

OK, could you point where did I criticized him for his investigations? And where I said he was lying? Or that I don't "buy it" because I haven't read his source?

I only criticized what I think is a way of influencing the readers and I said (not a criticism) that his sources were from the 20th century.

You are seeing criticisms to Bramley where there is none, I just want to get the best sources possible, so I am less interested in Bramley's book than on the sources he used, and I am less interested in those sources than in the sources they used.

What makes you look highly biased here is your eagerness to criticize his investigative techniques when in every instance you are wrong about the way he went about them which leads further evidence to my claim that you haven't even read his book yet.

As I wrote above, I am not criticizing his investigative techniques, specially because I do not know them, but why should I criticize his investigative techniques when I am trying to use his work to get to the sources?

Hey ArMap... Have you read The God's of Eden by William Bramley yet?

No, I read fast but I haven't had the time to read more than just some parts of the 18th chapter.

Once again, this shows that certain individuals here choose not to reply to posts that they cannot dispute, and make a poor attempt to dispute technicalities in posts from other genuine contributors to this thread.

Originally posted by GeminiSky
ArMap, at this point IM not sure whether you are an ATS moderator or an dis-info agent. Maybe both?

First of all I'm an ATS member, and I am also a moderator, but I am not an agent of anything.

1. They rarely make sense as compelling arguments in regards to what your are trying to dispute.

That's probably because I learnt English just by watching movies; it's enough for most situations, but not for all.

2. You have a way of making your PERSONAL OPINIONS sound like facts that have been publicly accepted and are written in stone.

That's not my intention, and I have been accused of using "in my opinion" too many times, but I guess I should keep on using it.

There seems to be a pattern im noticing here. Posters who cannot dispute or debate a certain piece of information that someone has posted, seem to instead go for weaker posts that have flaws in them, and then concentrate on discrediting that particular poster.

Could you please tell me if you are just talking about it or if you are accusing me of that? Thanks in advance.

Why is it important what the aerial phenomena were called? Who cares if they were called bolides or comets?

It's not that important, I agree.

The key issue here is that SOMETHING was reported in the SKY prior to the PLAGUES and that this was not an isolated incident for that era.

Allegedly.
That's why I am trying to get the closest to the sources that I can.

Why not focus on the core topic here? Why nit pick words and minor mistakes as to AERIAL PHENOMENA being described as comets or bolides?

We can do both, I am not limiting my time to answer posts in this thread, I am also trying to find more information.

All this does is ultimately derails the thread, and also makes posters weary and tired on debating technicalities instead of the core issues.

You're probably right, this is becoming a relatively narrow discussion instead of a wider investigation.

I will try to do better.

Originally posted by GeminiSky
Once again, this shows that certain individuals here choose not to reply to posts that they cannot dispute, and make a poor attempt to dispute technicalities in posts from other genuine contributors to this thread.

I dunno matey. How long have you been a member here?

It's not a good idea to come out "all guns blazing" just because you don't agree with someone else's methods, especially a well-respected member who, as has been shown time and time again doesn't have an agenda other than trying to get to the 'truth', whatever that may be.

For one, I respect Armap and his approach and don't like to see his name slurred just because of some misunderstanding of his methods.


As we say in New Zealand " Harden Up".



[edit on 26-5-2010 by aorAki]

reply to post by GeminiSky


People can be pedantic about certain ideas, perhaps unintentionally...
exploring any and all details is often the best way for people to come to well-founded conclusions about the material presented.

But, I really think it's time this topic moved forward,
personally the first time I came across this theory (I believe it was a fantastic ATS thread I read before I registered here)
I became convinced that Yes E.T's could quite possibly have contributed to humanity's demise in various situations globally... in combination with (or by exacerbating) naturally occurring phenomenon...to our detriment.

Unfortunately, I am not in the UFO's and E.T's are 'benevolent' camp.

Of course, unless we were there in person we will never know beyond mere speculation - and I do love to speculate by golly! =)

Of course im talking about a pattern in general that I have noticed. Why do you think im accusing you personally? Guilty conscience?

By the way I can understand your English just fine. So you must have watched quite a lot of good movies!

Yes please try to do better in the future. Thanks!

reply to post by aorAki


aorAki.....

I must second that!

ArMaP deserves a medal for his unrelenting good nature, attention to detail, etc...

Here's a "Gold Star" for ArMaP for his (as usual) terrific work in this thread!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8b262726137a.jpg[/atsimg]

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by aorAki


I have been reading ATS threads and forums close to 6 years now. And I have read many of ArMaps posts. Im not slurring anyone's name here. Its fine to remain objective, however nit picking over technicalities and not the core issues really tends to narrow down and derail a discussion.

For whats its worth I apologize for suggesting ArMap may be a dis info agent lol

ArMap has done a great thing buy actually finding the Italian manuscripts concerning the plague and I have already commended him on it.

I just hate seeing heated debates among posters about insignificant minor issues while at the same time nothing of substance being discussed about the bigger picture that the OP is about.

Does that make sense?

[edit on 26-5-2010 by GeminiSky]

Originally posted by GeminiSky
Of course im talking about a pattern in general that I have noticed. Why do you think im accusing you personally? Guilty conscience?

No, because you posted that in a post that also had an answer to a post I made.

By the way I can understand your English just fine. So you must have watched quite a lot of good movies!

Thanks, but sometimes I have some problems understanding what other people say or making myself understood, I only write in English on ATS.

PS: Please use the "REPLY TO" button when answering to other posts, that way it's easier to understand if you are answering a specific post or not.

reply to post by ArMaP



Yea sorry im still getting the hang of this....still cant figure out how to quote separate sections from a long post that im replying to.

Thanks for the tip!!

While watching that episode I too was a little confused. Then I started thinking, IF there is an alien that has been here for so long watching over us, it would make more sense that they possibly intervened during the time of the plague to prevent things from getting worse. They possibly stopped something that could have wiped human kind off the face of this planet.

I mean, if they had malevolent intent, they surely would be able to wipe us off the planet back then and now.

reply to post by Mr Lurker


Well I have another opinion on why the plague may have been caused by ET's, and what may have been its intended effect on the socioeconomic structure of the world at that time. It was a theory shared with me by a fellow ATS member, I will ask him if I can post it here or if he wants to himself....stay tuned folks!

It would be nice to think that perhaps fiendish aliens were responsible for the black death, but the standard of hygiene to your average Elizabethan Brit was infinitely less than your average Roman!!! London must have indeed stank to high heaven - just think of all those juicy germs! I believe no-on even suspected back then that hygiene and health were crucially interlinked! Little wonder Shakespeare had such an insightful grasp on the fragility of life.

That said, it's always food for thought to entertain alternative theories.....

reply to post by Larababe


I didn't start this thread because I wanted to believe in aliens. It wasn't because I felt that "its nice to think aliens were responsible for the plague"

I started this thread so we can objectively discuss the LINK between the aerial phenomena that was observed before and during the plagues.

It may have been ET's,

or it may have been time traveling humans from a future time when the earth was overpopulated or had a collapsed society and somehow restructuring the classes of the medieval era by killing off certain populations was going to help them in their particular time line...but I digress


Either way, something was observed in the sky and may be linked to the plagues that's why we gotta discuss things and not assume that just because the topic of UFO's is brought up that automatically its because people WANT to believe in aliens.

reply to post by GeminiSky


I only chipped in because history fascinates me and yet...alternative theories too fascinate me. Occams razor is the principle that the simplest explanation is often the right one, so to my mind, the black death was simply the result of the appalling living conditions of the times. That, oh, and rats have alot to answer for!!

It's hard when you work in a City like London (which I do....very near Buckingham Palace actually) to grasp how living conditions would have been worse than third world during the long period that the black death was prevalent. The River Thames was nothing more than a huge sewer!

It's impossible to separate the emerging folklore, cultural superstitions and mythic elements in historical data from instances that may well point to something genuinely supernatural or otherwordly.

It's only when you experiences for yourself something outside of the framework of "normal" or natural references in everyday life, you realise that indeed that some fantastical or outlandish stories handed down may well contain a kernal of truth.

Still, I'll stick with the official story in this instance I think. :-)

reply to post by Mr Lurker


That is what I wonder about this whole alien "intervention" thing too actually. And the conclusion I have drawn reminds me of that scene in The Mothman Prophecies where Richard Gere's character consults a mythology expert (brilliantly played by Alan Bates) who has experienced the mothman firsthand. When asking him what their "motives" are... Alan Bates character fearfully replies: "motives - they aren't human!".

Meaning, the frame of reference we use to assemble motives can only ever be based on what we know of motives in our primitive and short-sighted world! Who can possibly pinpoint what motivates a civilisation so far advanced from our own they can manipulate time and space..??

reply to post by Larababe


Ive mentioned before that Occams razor is not a rule that is written in stone and does not necessarily apply to every theory/subject.

So your opinion is that rats and poor hygiene spread the plague....How can you explain the UFO sightings dispensing fog or mist into the skies? Do you believe that they had absolutely no correlation to the plague? Was this all just simple coincidence? I believe there is more to this than just the Occams razor explanation.

I would blame rats and poor hygiene as well, if there were NO sightings of aerial phenomena that strongly resembles modern day UFO's and chemtrails COINCIDING with the plague outbreaks.

So Ill stick with my theory thanks

reply to post by GeminiSky

The only problem I have with the theory that there were UFO sightings dispensing fog or mist into the skies before the plague appeared is the number of places and times of all the plague waves that happened in Europe, Asia and Africa.

If that was the case we should have hundreds of sightings of UFOs dispensing fog or mist and it shouldn't be difficult to find those references.

PS: I know it's off-topic, but here is the page talking about that comet seen in Arabia and that is referenced in William Bramley's book. Too bad it's in Latin.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/1ff4efc88be932d0.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by ArMaP


Looks like a cigar shaped craft with portholes to me!!

Now can we assume that there was a higher level of literacy in Europe as compared to Africa and Asia at the time? Could It be that there were also accounts about these craft in African and Asian text, but they have not been preserved properly or have gone missing in time?

Could the Asian and African have been destroyed during war? Or maybe they were never recorded? Or maybe these ships showed up only in Europe?