Aerosol components in atmosphere proved

reply to post by weedwhacker


I accept that aerosol spray precision. I was just reacting to one more "proof of chemtrails" thread I dislike immensly. What has this black carbon article to do with it anyway?

reply to post by AboveTheTrees
If you dislike it so much why are you even paying so much attention to it. The Chemtrail Proof I mentioned is not written by ms Psoras but by the US Air Force, title of this document is a chapter in an Air Force Training research paper from `1996. The person in the governemt that sent this to Psoras states:

""""Below are the Highlights contained within the actual report. Please remember that this research report was issued in -1996- 8 years ago and that much of what was discussed as being in preliminary stages back then is bow a reality."""""" exact quote.

Originally posted by coolottie
reply to post by fazeone1981

 

Chadwicks made a comment about me yesterday that I had the intelligence of a "bowling ball"

he did ? that was very generous of him - a grievious insult to bowling balls though

reply to post by ignorant_ape
Evidently you can't even read the rules of ATS website, Personal attacks and deflamitory comments will get you taken off the ATS site.

reply to post by coolottie


You need to look more closely, again:

Andrea Psoras only wrote the front 2 pages as a letter to get the info, the main body of the text came from a government site not Ms Psoras.

Psoras' cover letter, first page and a half or so.

THEN, it is a proposal narrative that was submitted to the military (citation of source seems to be missing!) that merely discusses what they (those authors, still unknown) saw as a plausible future scenario. The government commissions LOTS of things like that...."think-tank" type of stuff.


About page #7 (out of 35!!) on the PDF, it stops abruptly, and on page #8, Psoras rears her head again!! The "memo" dated in 2005, and with the eye-catching title,

"***IMPORTANT UPDATE***"....

....which is what? A CRAP blog from that idiotic group known as "Global Research"....a, you guessed it!! A "chem"-trail believing website group....who use the same ignorance, misunderstanding, non-comprehension and mis-identification of normal occurrences, in this perpetual nonsense, and hoax.

It blathers on, in just the second paragraph, about paranoid delusional nonsense like "...bizarre meteorological occurrences as powerful electromagnetic devices manipulate both the jet stream and individual storm fronts to create artificial weather and climatic conditions."

What rubbish!!! These people are seriously not all there, and have deluded themselves.

They continue, in same paragraph, to babble about "...psychotronic mind/mood control technologies."

The REST of the pages, more idiotic ramblings, until page #16, where the "notes" begin, as they cite their "sources". More hilarity ensues....Cliff Carnicorn's name shows up, for one thing.....GIGANTIC hoax pusher, he is.

Eight pages of "notes".

Some more inane pages of garbage, about "artificial earthquakes", and even some religious mumbo-jumbo all tossed into a mess of baloney salad....

WHY do people actually not adopt some critical thinking skills, instead of taking this junk seriously!???

OH, and you said that Ms. Psoras only wrote the front two pages?

Then, WHY is her name, and contact information, at the bottom of page #35??

reply to post by weedwhacker
Here is the actual Air Force Paper, what the comments about it is if they were discussing it in 1996 then they are all ready doing it in 2005.

www.fas.org...

thanks for the documents ..

and concerning the way this thread is heading ..

i started it with the OSTI governement scientitif pdf ..


i def didnt see any point about trying to dirty up my post after your remarks weedwhacker


i read the document of 37 pages and i never .. ever saw or read anything concerning your woman hoaxer ...


there all scientifics with complete and detailed graph ..

i dunno whats his point ..

reply to post by weedwhacker
From the Air Force Site:

Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally, through alliance networks--particularly regional ones--or through an ad hoc coalition or a UN framework. It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on earth or to modify space weather, improve communications through ionospheric modification (the use of ionospheric mirrors), and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of technologies which can provide substantial increase in US, or degraded capability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness, reach, and power. Weather modification will be a part of 2025 and is an area in which the US must invest if only to be able to counter adversaries seeking such a capability.

THIS IS NOT MY THREAD, I JUST MADE A COMMENT, BUT YOU ALL HAVE TURNED HIS THREAD INTO A PERSONAL ATTACK ON ME. KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ON HIS SUBJECT

Dont worry about them

im happy you posted your opinion on my thread ,

at least its not a judgmenet but an open door on the subject , which i find gratifying ..

at least were not posting stuff like , i have video proof of chemtrails doin it ...

2 min later .. oh # i hear black helicopters coming ..

10 min .. 90 percent upload .. theres a knock on my door .. im scared and pumpin my shotgun ..

20 min .. a hoax thread and having made hundreds lose there time out of this ..

reply to post by fazeone1981
Yes, or like a comet 63,000,000 miles from earth is going to cause a pole shift.

reply to post by fazeone1981


Why, oh why, will people not understand that the first two pages of this document serve as a coversheet for the remaining pages sent in the same envelope (assuming snailmail was used) by the same person as things she feels support her views?
The government did not produce this document, the woman who signed the document did.
The government did not spread the document, they entered it as part of the public record, just like any other document sent to a similar part of the whole governmental bureaucracy is.
The government has to treat all documents the same.....security measures before opening, logging it in, security measures as to content, classification by department, then a department person looks at it and sends it off the the right division of the department, who gets its and sends it along to the right person in the right division of the right department......if it makes it that far. I'm sure there are cues they use along the way to exclude docments to passed onto a higher level. As this person puts "chemtrails" on the opening page, and the government has always stated without doubt that such a program/act/thing does not exist, her letter probably didn't make it very far up the chain at all.
The contents do not exclude it from the public record, though. They would be filed, and now that the world is on the internet, digitized and put on a website, where all such documents will eventually show up. If it was classified, it wouldn't have been put on public access years ago.
I know it's tempting to see anything from the government with any conspiratorial buzzwords as an affirmation. It's not. It's answers to the people who use those words or, as is the case here, it's what was sent to the government by someone else. Because it's on a .gov site does not make the content .gov-endorsed.

And surely hell has frozen over because this is something that Alex Jones got right. He knows it's reworked crap, too. Who knew?

reply to post by stars15k

Lt Gen Jay W. Kelley

Commander, Air University

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama

Developed by

College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education

It says this: It is not a PDF , but an Excutive Summary. The link to it is below. Ms Psoras name is not on it anywhere.

Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally, through alliance networks--particularly regional ones--or through an ad hoc coalition or a UN framework. It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on earth or to modify space weather, improve communications through ionospheric modification (the use of ionospheric mirrors), and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of technologies which can provide substantial increase in US, or degraded capability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness, reach, and power. Weather modification will be a part of 2025 and is an area in which the US must invest if only to be able to counter adversaries seeking such a capability.

www.fas.org...

Back to the matter at hand. What everyone else said about aerosols. Of course there are aerosols. But the largest producers of aerosols are:

• The oceans: they put up both water and minerals, usually salt.
  
• The Sahara desert, which buts up dust and sand which can drift as far as Florida
  
• Volcanos, all kinds of thing, even pulverized rock.
  
• The burning of the rainforest; this is the largest man-made contributor.
  
• Any fire anywhere
  
• Any internal combustion engine any size, any use, anywhere
  
• Smokers, who release an aerosol of ash and carcinogens
  
• Anyone who breathes
  
• Any industry
  
• Any agriculture
  

As far as carbon being found? What do you think is produced in any fire or any engine? Ash and soot, or carbon. Why do you consider this unusual?
The deposition, size, and type of atmospheric aerosols is tracked everyday. Here's a link to you can see for yourself. Aerosol Tracker

reply to post by stars15k
What the OP is talking about in Aersosls is what is called "carbon dust" put into the air by planes, I just posted the PDF because it shows what carbon dust is used for. If you can't or won't read the fas.org link: the chapter under: "" Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather"""




www.fas.org...

Now please leave me out of the conversation I am sure the OP might have something to say.

reply to post by coolottie


Yeah, I know. He's one of the people who was responsible for the thinktank that formulated that particular document.
She fell for the same thing many "chemtrailers" fall for.......someone said it, so it must be true. Wrong. It was an exercise for what might be sometime in the future. Hence the title including the year 2025. Not 2005, not even 2010 or 2011. What someone thought might be capable of being used. It's not even a formal plan of action.
I'm 50 this year. I remember reading in elementary school that by 2000, there would be flying cars, robots in every home, men on Mars, etc. Why? Because at the time, that is what the world thought of as advancements. Instead, what do we have? Computers. The forward thinkers didn't guess computers and all the "smart" toys we have now. But we still have regular cars, I still have to handwash my dishes, and we have only some really nice pictures of Mars. They were very far off, weren't they?
Just because someone says something, no matter how smart or how high in the military or government they are, does not mean it's going to happen or even can happen.

reply to post by stars15k
This is about owning the weather in 2025, but like the comment in the PDF by whoever sent her the info states that in 2005 if they were talking about it in 1996 then weather modification is already a reality. Go to cyberspaceorbit.com and findout just how long ago people started talking about it. Also the UN just put a moritorium on spraying the carbon dust, aluminim, barium, or bird poo. at the conference in Cancun.

reply to post by coolottie


I just finished reading the entire report. Yep, the whole thing, including looking at the footnotes and resources.
What I said about aerosols? Was dead on.
The report is not talking about adding carbon dust to the air, and does not ever even once mention deliberate action to do so. It's conclusion is:

However, in all cases black carbon mitigation is beneficial, but aerosol microphysical processes need to be better constrained in order to estimate how effective those measures can be.

That means the report is about reducing black carbon from the atmosphere. Not adding. Stopping it from being deposited there.
What is an unknown is the way BC combines with other aerosols and gasses and how that changes things. And the sources of this BC? Not planes. In fact, planes are not mentioned at all. It's burning biomass...the burning of the rainforest. And diesel emissions. Not jet fuel, or anything sprayed from the back of a plane.

You didn't read the whole thing, did you? Or if you did, you didn't understand it. So, please. Read it. Understand what you are reading, and come back.

Originally posted by fazeone1981



Some Chemtrails on top of my house , last december

This looks like a contrail to me. How can I tell the difference between a chemtrail and a contrail?

reply to post by coolottie


See? There you go again. People have been talking about it. No where does "if" people are "talking about" anything make it a reality. And no one had to send her those pages....they are easily to find all over the internet. It's why AJ didn't continue on with the caller when she mentioned that link. It's rehashed of old stuff that has already been discussed. He didn't want to drag it all out again.
Where is a source for the United Nation moritoriam? I'd like to see that one myself. I'm guessing it's not what you think it is, especially since the OP's report is not what anybody said it was.
Well, except Chad'.

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed

Originally posted by fazeone1981



This looks like a contrail to me. How can I tell the difference between a chemtrail and a contrail?

Well, if you can see it, see a picture of it, or a video, then it's a contrail.
If you are dreaming about it, it's a "chemtrail", because they are not real.