Chemtrail FB group sucked in by photo

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

It is quite easy actually - evidence of absence is not a difficult thing to prove in many cases.

Actually, I beg to differ. What chemtrail debunkers have before them is a challenge I don't envy, on any level. To successfully 'win' the debate, its required to not only prove the negative of what people personally report not existing ,but none of it ever having existed..in secret or public, by prototype or production version.

That? I've seen nothing come remotely close to achieving. If it weren't such absolute positions taken? That wouldn't be the case..but the absolutism defines the challenge, IMO.

Similarly with "chemtrails" - there is a mountain of evidence that would exist if chemtrails were real - starting with equipment on aircraft, unexplained chemicals in fuel or on airports, actual unexplained death or illness rates, actual unexplained pollutants in thousands of city air quality programmes being run the world over, manuals, documents, real whistleblowers.

By the same token, there should be a mountain of evidence that UFO's exist. Thus far, not a single definitive piece of physical evidence exists in the world to show something of intelligent design originated off Earth. Some come close and some have their believers. Nothing...not one item..meets the test. Yet. Likewise, there should be a body by now if Bigfoot exists. It's reporting in consistent detail goes back hundreds of years, in just North America, let alone world wide. No evidence, yet. Not one shred...(no pun intended), despite some promising developments now and then.

To say nothing exists as evidence of negative existence, is...illogical. To say that in direct reference to something which, by definition, is a conspiracy theory and so, by nature, would assume evidence is secured under layers of cover-up is almost baffling at times ...given where we are for the debate.

but since NONE of that actually exists it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that there are no such things as "chemtrails" - there has not been one piece of verifiable evidence produced showing chemtrails exist - NOT ONE, not in the 15 or so years since their existence was first postulated.

See above for the few hundred years with Bigfoot and no evidence or couple thousand years on UFOs with no evidence. The lack of evidence suggests something doesn't exist. It might even make it likely....but it's a world away from STATING something doesn't exist as a factual position, IMHO.

After all... Giant Squids didn't exist either and more than one person over the years has been the subject of relentless ridicule for suggesting otherwise ..... until they found one to scientifically test and verify as existing.

the main one is the ice budget argument - no aircraft in existence could carry enough of any substance to make something that looks like a contrail and that is as long as contrails can be - it is physically impossible.

Oh really? So it's your assertion that not only are artificially produced contrails physically impossible by current methods and known technology, but will always be impossible to create with any future or developed technology that may come later (or has, in black budgeting, already arrived)?

How long does it need to be? How long is each reported example by people believing they saw Chemtrails? Do we have figures to apply that test to, and definitively say it is, in fact, true?

That's an interesting position in itself. I'll maintain my open mind on Chemtrails though, as well as a curious interest in what others have to share. After all, we're all learning about the unknown together for some things.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000
Of course you beg to differ - I didn't expect anything else.

You are wrong about chemtrails and dismiss all the evidence that shows how and why you are wrong.

I am quite happy that UFO's exist - I work in aviation and see/encounter/am told about UFO's on a weekly basis. alien spaceships from off-earth would not be UFO's tho - if you knew they were alien spaceships then they would not be unidentified........duh!

and that is the sort of sloppy thinking that let's you still believe that chemtrails exist despite all eth evidence to the contrary.

your analogy with bigfoot and squid also completely misses the point - absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence - did you deliberately confuse the 2 - or was it genuinely too difficult for you to understand?

You apparently didn't even bother to LOOK at the ice budget argument - you just made stuff up to question about it without knowing the details - which are covered in it.

All this is par for the course for believers, and is a perfect compliment to the OP showing the lack of critical thought that goes into the chemtrail hoax

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

You are wrong about chemtrails and dismiss all the evidence that shows how and why you are wrong.

You tend to assume too much. I've noted before but it's important when it gets heated, to be very clear. I do not believe in chemtrails. I'm not a "Believer" as the term is used, as I know some are.

I have seen, on more than one occasion, what I believe may have been the same as people traditionally describe and term as chemtrails. I'm not sure though. There is no way to be, without a chemical air sample from the time or detaining the plane when it landed. Neither of which, of course, occurred. Nothing I've ever seen produced shows what I saw is impossible in the true sense, as chemtrails. Nothing has proven they were, either.

What I am keen on though is keeping an open mind and not shutting out either side. Since reading the IPCC/United Nations policy thinkers, thinking up chemtrails by literal definition of process as a proposed method of solar and/or carbon mitigation? I'm more open minded now than I've ever been before, as it happens. More interested, too.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I don't believe you.

Why is it you only ever argue against evidence showing chemtrails are nonsense?? When was the last time you criticized any of the so-called chemtrail evidence??


It is a similar "fence sitting" attitude to people who pretend to be just asking questions - a thinly disguised attempt to avoid having to argue your position.

If someone truly has an open mind then they cannot look t the evidence showing that chemtrails cannot exist, and the total lack of evidence that chemtrails do exist, and then claim to have not made up their mind.

Such an attitude betrays an unwillingness to actually evaluate the evidence - and the only reason for not being wiling to evaluate the evidence is an unwillingness to accept what it will show you.

sorry this is a bit personal - but you did make your attitude the issue.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

sorry this is a bit personal - but you did make your attitude the issue.

I shared that I have an opinion to what I personally saw, as well as the general world view of keeping an open mind on what hasn't been positively proven otherwise. That is where I think I put that, and where it's probably just as well to leave it for my two carrots tossed in.

The absolutism of the position, and not the position itself is what really jumps out, I think. Something similar to how the way those words can be outlined to fit together and form a whole different message for whoever spotted that first on the graphic used for the OP.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I went to the site 'australia & new zealand against chemtrails & geoengineering.' I didn't find your OP picture.

Looking at the image you put up I see that it was an image placed by a single user as a comment within something?

The user name is not legible. Is this by device?

Did you or related cohort place this image on this site in order to be able to come back and discredit it?

Why no link to the actual story on the site which contains this image in the comments section?

Please explain yourself.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
Nice find Gaul.

Can I also add to the list of problems that there were no RCAF pilots at all during the period stated as it was the Canadian Armed Forces Air Command. Ait was renamed the RCAF in 2011. Any former pilot would refer to the service they flew for then, not what it was called years after they left..

originally posted by: GeekOfTheWeek
a reply to: gladtobehere

I agree, being 56 years old, I have seen the sky literally change in my lifetime. I remember when the only jets spraying out junk into the skies were older jet engines, like B-52's belching out that black smoke, and they still do to this day.
Commercial airliners have become much more efficient, and no longer have these smoke issues. Today when you look up into the sky, you see contrails that last all day, when they never did in the 60's or 70's. There's plenty of video evidence to prove they are real, but just like UFO's, some just don't want to SEE it.
These contrail/chemtrails are weather modification on a world wide scale. Even the UN has proclaimed it so. It's all there in place for you to see, if you just open your eyes, and for once just look at the evidence instead of disclaiming it.

You seem to be yet another who believes that contrails cannot last all day. You can only have got that impression from reading it on a pro-chemtrail website (or being told it by someone else who did) as that was the central point of the entire hoax when it began and they are the only ones pushing what is a pretty blatant lie. This claim completely ignores what contrails are, and how cirrus clouds of identical composition behave on a daily basis. I find it incredibly sad that people still believe any only nonsense they are told, which is ironically the main thing that the OP proves.

There are clues for you within your own post about what's changed, but you can't see them for the lies you've swallowed. Yes, the skies have changed. There were persistant trails that spread out in the 60's and 70's (and long before) but you were much less likely to see one. I was aware of persistant spreading trails long before I actually saw one purely because of my interest in aviation and in WW2 where the phenomena first came to prominence with reconnaissance and bombing flights and which is covered in several contemporary accounts and histories. That claim being front and centre was probably why I dismissed the first chemtrail site I read as pure uneducated nonsense. After all, how would you judge a website that told you horses have six legs but two of them are invisible? The claim that contrails can't spread or persist is THAT obvious and THAT stupid.

To find out why you don't need to believe a stupid lie. Just research how many aircraft were flying then compared to now, then research how many of those flew with high bypass turbofans, which are virtually universal today. Next look into the relationship between these engines and contrails. That's really all you need to do to understand that point. Which leaves us looking for a difference between chemtrails and contrails and how would one spot one?

It makes me laugh when believers call me closed minded or dumb because I actually researched this topic and discovered it was nonsense, rather than just parrot the lie like they do. Maybe you can search this site for my Contrail Observation Thread, which give a small taste of the observations I made myself out of curiosity, and just in case I was missing something. I concluded eventually that I wasn't, people were just not fully understanding what they were looking at.

a reply to: luxordelphi
my explanation is in the OP - sorry you don't understand it.

What do you mean by "come back to discredit it" - can you explain yourself please?

Edited to add: PS - you can link directly to the picture by copying its url into your browser, which allows you to read the name of the FB poster.

originally posted by: GeekOfTheWeek
a reply to: gladtobehere

I agree, being 56 years old, I have seen the sky literally change in my lifetime. I remember when the only jets spraying out junk into the skies were older jet engines, like B-52's belching out that black smoke, and they still do to this day.
Commercial airliners have become much more efficient, and no longer have these smoke issues. Today when you look up into the sky, you see contrails that last all day, when they never did in the 60's or 70's. There's plenty of video evidence to prove they are real, but just like UFO's, some just don't want to SEE it.
These contrail/chemtrails are weather modification on a world wide scale. Even the UN has proclaimed it so. It's all there in place for you to see, if you just open your eyes, and for once just look at the evidence instead of disclaiming it.

I'm a couple of years younger and I remember clearly seeing persistent contrails from the early 1970s onwards.Some days they'd be gone after a couple of minutes,while some days they'd hang around for most of the day.And even at just 13 years old,I was able to work out that the weather front that followed a day of persistent contrails was the cause and not the effect of what I'd seen the day before.

a reply to: network dude

Well from my observations (plenty). I see a plane leaving a trail behind. After a few hours of watching, I have watched that trail go from a line in the sky, to almost a full cloud!

Also, usually when I do see such "chemtrails" I ALWAYS see it a 1-3 days before rainfall or nearby rainfall. Any other time of a week I never see planes scattered around in the sky flying at multiple directions and sometimes overlapping each other, leaving behind trails....

Whether the chemtrail thing is true or not, spraying chemicals into the sky in order to affect the weather is not fake. It was used by the US back in Vietnam.

originally posted by: Kuroodo
Whether the chemtrail thing is true or not, spraying chemicals into the sky in order to affect the weather is not fake. It was used by the US back in Vietnam.

Yep, you are exactly right. It was cloud seeding. It's still done today. Here is a company that does it.
www.weathermodificationinc.com...

But when you see thick contrails lasting and turning into clouds, then a weather front comes in a few days later, does that make you think that the clouds caused it, or were a precursor to it?

If you look into meteorology a bit, you will see that those lasting contrails were an indication of weather changing.

And as with anything I write here, please check my facts on that.

a reply to: network dude

I know for sure that when there's a weather front coming, the weather front causes the clouds and any precipitation. BUT I just don't understand why I only see a bunch of planes scrambled in the sky (at the same altitude, sometimes different) with lasting and spreading trails behind them right when there is a nearby weather front.

a reply to: Kuroodo
Here is a good article on how to predict weather with clouds.

Knowing that contrails are man made cirrus clouds, you can use them too.

a reply to: Kuroodo

Further to the reply that Network Dude gave you, on the flip side, the reason you don't see the planes when a weather front isn't approaching, is because without that weather front to make the contrails linger about, those planes are just tiny specks and very difficult to spot.

As a hobby, I photograph aircraft (sad, I know, so shoot me). FR24 always gives me ample warning of the approach of an interesting subject. Without the tell-tale contrail to point it out, it is INCREDIBLY difficult to spot most aircraft, even when you KNOW where they are already.

I guess when your not a saddo trying to take pictures, it would be easy to presume there were hardly any planes going over.