Chem trails

Zippy 99 wrote:

Good report on how governments have weather modification technology and are using it.

Interesting report, but it says nothing of the sort.

Lets just look at some snippets from the article, to illustrate why I disagree with your analysis.

from the article wrote:

Extreme weather patterns in recent years, such as record numbers of hurricanes, floods and droughts across the world, may have been the result of such technology being tested, they claim.

Without concrete evidence to support them, such claims to many remain little more than a hot topic for conspiracy theorists.

Good document indeed. It admits straight up front that there is no concrete evidence. It maintains this speculative position throughout, and does not - as you claim - report on how governments have this technology.

from the article wrote:

But, according to some, the facility also possesses the capability to knock out communications in a wide area of the world, by making modifications to the ionosphere.

If the facility has been used for this purpose it is doubtful that we would ever find out.

At a guess, I'd say that there would be at least one indication - that being that communications in a wide area of the world had been knocked out. Has this ever happened when other conditions (such as sunspots) known to cause communications problems were not present? No, it hasn't.

So I think we can safely say that it hasn't been used for this purpose.

Now, I admit that if such an event were to occur, and we couldn't find a reason for it, we couldn't automatically pin it on HAARP, which is probably what the author is trying to say - that if it were to be used (as opposed to "if it has been used") for this purpose that it is doubtful we would ever find out.

But again, the article doesn't say that the US government has the technology, as you claim, but rather says that some people claim that it has, but that said people don't have hard evidence to back up their claims.

Going further...

from the article wrote:

Conspiracy theorists point to an extract from the Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report - a fanciful document of future technologies - as evidence.
...
However it is doubtful that the document, readily available online, carries any official indication of current policy.

Here, the article casts doubt on even the circumstantial evidence being offered. It describes the document as fanciful.

I'm sure the US Air Force would like to own the weather. They may even have some research projects into same, but thats a long, long cry from suggesting they can control/own the weather, which is what you're saying.

Its a bit like looking at the various gung-ho types insisting that the US should "own near-earth space" and concluding that not only is this policy, but its a goal that has already been achieved.

Many believe part of the reason for chemtrails is to help with weather modification.

No question. No argument. Many do indeed believe this.

Many people also believe that lemmings periodically commit mass suicide. Belief doesn't make them right, no more than it makes chemtrail-believers right.

Now, beofore you say it, I know that it doesn't make them wrong either...but thats where we have to start applying critical or skeptical analysis.

The classic argument to illustrate this is that we don't know that there isn't a teacup orbiting Pluto. So, should we believe that there is? Should we believe that there realistically might be? Or do we say that until there is hard evidence to support the belief, we should remain skeptical - in other words, work on the assumption that there is no teacup, but remain open to the possibility that evidence will be supplied at a future date.

Unfortunately for the weather-control / chemtrail case these believers would like to make, there is - as the article you so helpfully provided states clearly - a shortage of evidence. There are people making unsubstantiated (and - at times - unsubstantiable) claims, which others believe.

Me, I remain skeptical, because just like the article you put your faith in made explicitly clear - there is a lack of hard evidence to support your belief.

"$2.6 million worth of new and additional equipment." - will that service the connacht area???

tireoghain01 wrote: »

I am not responding to your posts from this point on. Anybody who even dares to refute any of your arguments either seems to get banned outright, like myself on many occasions or else they recieve threats. I now intend to keep myself above reproach.

Are you for real? Do you read what you post? You use secondary logins to back-up your own points, which you couldn't back-up in the first place. If the sceptics where doing this it'd be a government plot. So these trails in the sky are chemicals right?, so where does the water vapour go? Why use a ridiculously awkward and expensive way of dispersing chemicals when you could just put it in the water? It doesn't make any sense.

...some nice pictures of clouds there!

kippy wrote: »

So now the Irish Government are spraying as well. Thats a bit of a change from the original questions one of the "Believers" answered earlier on.
Lets just speculate a bit:
Skys over Dublin are being sprayed.
1 Who is spraying?(actually flying the planes, refueling the plans and responsible for their safe trip through the sky)?
2 Who finances this, who orders the spraying and who do they answer to?
3 Why do this? As mentioned earlier (which I have to say, was completely overlooked) spraying from the sky is neither targeted, stealthy or inexpensive) Why they hell dont "they" poison the water reservoirs directly? Dublin only has one or two sources of water and this appears to be the way to go for any such poisoning of the population of the city.
4 Why spend so much time and effort doing this when there are easier and more effective ways of doing it?
5 What do you personally do to protect yourself from the effects of this spraying? Wear a mask?
6 Have you brought up your issues with your local politician? If so what has the response been? Similiarily have you written a letter to the department of the environment or the green party or the EU asking for clarification of what is going on in the skies above our heads? If so I would be interested in seeing any replies.
7 You mentioned before that there were a few countries that didnt actually get sprayed. To be honest I found that amazing. The whole world is getting sprayed apart from these few countries. How many undocumented flights, gallons of fuel/chemical and man hours would be needed for an operation of this size and who is logisticily and financially responsible for running it?

Anyway, I am off to enjoy my weekend, Chemtrails or no chemtrails. I doubt we get sprayed here in Galway anyway, we have enough diseases/hardships and afflictions anyway.
Kippy

Any chance of a few logical answers to my logical questions?
Any of the pictures posted here prove nothing in my opinion. If people were as well equipped with cameras in the 60's,70's,80's and as well equiped with a method of displaying photos I'd say you'd see the same type of cloud formations/contrails.
Kippy