NASA admits chemtrails – 10 July 2013

Well you've been looking for some sort of evidence, well this is about as good as it's going to get considering what most of you claim you need to have in order to even consider the notion your beloved government wouldn't do something potentially harmful to the environment or its people and keep it a secret from the public LOL.

A NASA scientist admits over the phone that numerous types of chemtrails do exist. Listen to this and let the debates begin. I know this subject is certainly taboo on this site, why I don't know I thought this site was to deny ignorance and search for the truth.

aircrap.org...

I did a search by my title and didn't see anything so if you've come to say "already been done, do a search" then go to that thread.

NASA Scientist www.nasa.gov...

Let's consider they are only monitoring wind currents by the sun and the electric current, why would they really want to know that. I've heard that when the sun began to start changing that the governments of the world all collaborated to block the amount of exposure getting through and now it's doing more harm than good to the planet but it's too late to turn back. Basically screwed one way or the other.

let the fun begin, hoping for some good thoughts without the nonsense for a change.

reply to post by NONPOINT21


Here is an article from Clemson university to where the launch rockets to disperse "chemical tracers"

media-relations.www.clemson.edu...

Chemtrails are real. I don't know what more evidence you would need. The real question is,,,,is it really to test what they are saying or something else and this is just the cover story.

Already been done.

As was pointed out in that thread, a rocket leaving a chemical marker much higher in the atmosphere than a plane flies, does not a chemtrail make. How does that even begin to equate to the trail left by a plane flying straight and level over your head?

Well you've been looking for some sort of evidence, well this is about as good as it's going to get considering what most of you claim you need to have in order to even consider the notion your beloved government wouldn't do something potentially harmful to the environment or its people and keep it a secret from the public LOL.

let the fun begin, hoping for some good thoughts without the nonsense for a change.

So basically looking for a thread where only people that agree with you post.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I'm looking for people that actually want to discuss what the NASA scientist says and then the Clemson university article confirms. If you don't want to participate then don't. They admit Chemtrails are real, i didn't mention planes did I. Miguel Larsen says they will look like white clouds in the sky. You mentioned planes not me.

I think they are also using planes, but that is not the evidence I'm showing. Your argument is not valid.

reply to post by NONPOINT21


No, it's not. Because NASA admits to a chemical release from a few rockets (this has been done in other areas on a small scale, but this particular launch was two rockets). That doesn't somehow make all reports of chemtrails real, or chemtrails in general real. All this did was release a visible chemical into the atmosphere that allowed them to see what the winds were doing, much higher than normal. This does not somehow validate chemtrails.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Actually it does because both articles admit it. They use the word "chemtrails" You obviously don't want to discuss why we would want to be testing this type of behavior from the atmosphere which is what I asked for in this thread. I'm sure you didn't listen to the call or read the article.

I bet you know more than the NASA scientist though.

Originally posted by NONPOINT21
Well you've been looking for some sort of evidence, well this is about as good as it's going to get considering what most of you claim you need to have in order to even consider the notion your beloved government wouldn't do something potentially harmful to the environment or its people and keep it a secret from the public LOL.

edit on 26-7-2013 by NONPOINT21 because: (no reason given)

I take no issue with the possibility of my "beloved government doing something harmful to the environment or it's people." I take issue with the completely ineffective concept of a plane flying at 30,000 feet or higher doing the job. It's asinine. Period.

There are thousands of more effective ways to accomplish such a goal. Consider all of the crap you breathe in at ground level from pollution each day. Any or all of that could be spiked to all mighty hell and be more effective than the minimal amount of chemical that would find its way to the ground through high altitude spraying. And I'm not saying anyone is poisoning us through factories or somesuch on purpose either. Simply that if you wanted to do so, that would be the way to go.

And as long as there is no logical answer to the question of how the evil doers avoid said poisoning from the air, I remain firmly on the chemtrails are bs side of the argument.

Now if you prefer to talk about cloud seeding types of spraying, I completely agree with that, but then again it's no secret and never has been. Our local paper even reports in advance about cloud seeding. I don't consider that the same thing as chemtrails, but every time I firmly rebuke chemtrails, cloud seeding is always brought up. Cloud seeding is not chemtrails and cloud seeding is not secret.

All this really shows is that NASA has a really nice scientist, trying to explain something to someone who is obviously not informed about much of anything. He says "chemtrails", because she did.

But parsing the term to make it an admission of the conspiracy is just desperation. If you believe all "chemtrails" have to be delivered by rockets into the ionosphere, okay. But to claim a connection to planes leaving white lines in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, miles lower is not right.

And the only mention of "chemtrails" is in the video, not the article. If you read "chemical marker" as "chemtrail", you are wrong again. The amount released he says can be seen by special equipment. Then it will be dispersed into the entire ionosphere. Ever hear the word "dilution"? A tracer is only enough to detect. It will then mix with the rest of the ionosphere, all 176 billion cubic kilometers of it. Anything in aerosol in the ionosphere is not coming down to ground level for years, if it comes down at all.

Look up the difference in the ionosphere and flight altitude.

Really, it's just sad that you need to grasp at straws like this.

reply to post by NONPOINT21


Yes I have. You are far from the first to bring it up. The tracer element would do nothing but disperse in the atmosphere. The only thing it does is give them a look at high altitude winds.

Originally posted by NONPOINT21
Well you've been looking for some sort of evidence, well this is about as good as it's going to get considering what most of you claim you need to have in order to even consider the notion your beloved government wouldn't do something potentially harmful to the environment or its people and keep it a secret from the public LOL.

And with that wild and totally false assumption you expose yourself. You already have an agenda, discussion is not your thing. Bye

reply to post by NONPOINT21


the real question is how many tons of this crap has been dispersed into the atmosphere
enough to change the apparent color of the sun?
[ask Superman he'll tell you the truth]

hold on tight NONPOINT21 you can expect Funky-chicken* and the rest of the Disinfo team are going to flood the boards with all manner of spam to push this thread out of sight.

most "chemmies" have figured out their game any way. especially the fact that aprox. 80% of the "chemtrail lunacy" they regularly "debunk" originally sprayed out of their own mouths for purposes of muddying the waters.

*currently enjoying NZ's worst drought in the last 50 years

Originally posted by waynos
And with that wild and totally false assumption you expose yourself. You already have an agenda, discussion is not your thing. Bye

as if your own agendas weren't obvious, some are even so bold as to "flog their blogs"

awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
can't debunk this one so...

so you're going to ignore it

reply to post by TheMagus


There is nothing to debunk. NASA fired a rocket and released a tracer in the upper atmosphere, wooo.

The attempt to built it into something it isn't is self-debunking to people with knowledge enough to see it.

And yet again you manage to post entirely about other members, do you ever contribute ANYTHING yourself or are you just a parasite?

reply to post by NONPOINT21

NASA Scientist www.nasa.gov...

Did you read any of that info at your link?

Three heliophysicists—Spiro K. Antiochos, James A. Klimchuk, Douglas E. Rowland, and the Solar Dynamics Observatory Science Investigation Team recently received Agency Honor Awards to celebrate their unique contributions to NASA's mission. The awards acknowledged their great collaborations to advance heliophysics, contributing to the young research field of space weather that tracks how energy from the sun affects the space environment around Earth and potentially disrupts space technology.

www.nasa.gov...

What is relevant to this thread at your link?

reply to post by TheMagus

hold on tight NONPOINT21 you can expect Funky-chicken* and the rest of the Disinfo team are going to flood the boards with all manner of spam to push this thread out of sight.

No, the lack of evidence is what pushes threads out of sight...

Can you please show us what disinfo the team floods threads out of sight with?

I know you need time so please take as long as you need to gather that info I will wait...

Okay, for those of you that have a hard time comprehending what NASA did here you go...



Enjoy...

reply to post by NONPOINT21


What a nice find! And how really helpful it is to be able to have a conversation directly with one of the NASA atmospheric science team. I noticed that he rather liberally interspersed his conversation with the word 'chemtrails' which didn't seem to have the same fantasy connotation to him that it does to a number of people on ATS. He mentioned chemtrails several times and chemical release and hence, chemtrails.

The link in your second post is also a great find because the article specifically mentions a long white cloud over a number of states which was predicted to persist for, perhaps, 20 minutes. This is well within the normal parameters of what persistence should ordinarily be.

I am, of course, against releasing lithium, in trace or volue, and all chemicals and structured particles into any part of the atmosphere because we do not know anything much, as the NASA person himmself said, about the atmosphere and its' interactions with our planet. I also feel, of course, that, looking at numerous past incidents, many of the chemicals that were once considered safe are, after about 40 or so years, declared toxic. And that usually only happens after much damage to persons, wildlife, plant life and waterways has already been done.

There are harmful man made chemicals in the air, on the ground, and in the water that match up with what "chemtrail" proponents have stated. it doesn't matter if they were sprayed from planes or not,does it? the debate of the delivery method is pointless and only serves to distract from the real issue, the chemicals are real and dangerous. any time I've tried to discuss this I'm drowned out by people screaming about how contrails aren't chemtrails, fine I don't care if the chemicals are spread by airplanes, rockets, or insects. I care that the chemicals themselves are real and are extant in our ecosystem. you can debunk chemtrails all day and night but you cant debunk all the evidence of the chemicals themselves.

reply to post by abe froman


And most of the skeptics on here really admit they are there. But the source makes a lot of difference in what to do about them. If they're ground based, do we need more regulations for emissions, etc. If there were a secret govt project to spray from planes, then what needs to be done. So while yes, they are there, where they came from is almost as important.

Whilst I agree that this doesn't prove regular chemtrails, it doesn't mean that harmful chemicals aren't being released on a scientific basis on an occasional basis.

I know a lot of people believe in chemtrails, but there is simply too many people who work within the aviation industry in my opinion to be able to keep it quiet.

In any case, the one omission that that video may have raised however is that there is a lot more interaction between weather patterns and the sun's activity than what we are usually told... but I'm no scientist, that's just what I personally took from the conversation.

reply to post by abe froman

I care that the chemicals themselves are real and are extant in our ecosystem. you can debunk chemtrails all day and night but you cant debunk all the evidence of the chemicals themselves.

Are you sure about that?

Just one thing chemtrail believers can't seem to agree on their makeup either, do you know what makes up a chemtrail?