Chemtrails, the dismal EPIC failure.

a reply to: Blarneystoner

I do go dancing - ballroom, rock and roll, ceroc.......

But that aside, I see that the typical tactic of ad hominem attack being employed here. It's always interesting to see the same guys hard at it, day after day and on several different sites as well - no credible evidence, just complaining that other people ask pertinent questions or show actual evidence that you don't like.

The screen names often change -I guess because they often descend to swearing and bannable behavior - but the gist of it remains the same....and often the writing style too.

Makes me wonder what those same guys do for a living that allows them the extraordinary amount of free time spent attacking people for providing actual factual information. Day after day, year after year... same guys... same song.

Debunking chemtrails is easy - it takes little or no time because there's nothing new to debunk, so when "the same old drivel" is punted up supporting contrails it is pretty quick to recourse to "the same old debunking".

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: Blarneystoner

I do go dancing - ballroom, rock and roll, ceroc.......

But that aside, I see that the typical tactic of ad hominem attack being employed here. It's always interesting to see the same guys hard at it, day after day and on several different sites as well - no credible evidence, just complaining that other people ask pertinent questions or show actual evidence that you don't like.
The screen names often change -I guess because they often descend to swearing and bannable behavior - but the gist of it remains the same....and often the writing style too.

Makes me wonder what those same guys do for a living that allows them the extraordinary amount of free time spent attacking people for providing actual factual information. Day after day, year after year... same guys... same song.

Debunking chemtrails is easy - it takes little or no time because there's nothing new to debunk, so when "the same old drivel" is punted up supporting contrails it is pretty quick to recourse to "the same old debunking".

Aren't you clever?



No...

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Blarneystoner

of course you are utterly incapable of starting a new thread

Of course.... you are correct in your utter assertion. Either that or I am utterly uninterested. The truth is that I just like to watch you all go into damage control mode. Can you hear me grinning?

a reply to: Petros312

Good luck underlings.

Well, they pretty much shot themselves in the foot as soon as they used Alex Jones in it.

a reply to: theMediator

Well your at an extremity. I think your delusional and self-righteous or a shill. Pick your choice.

Well, that's not nice.

I am willing to guess if he were delusional he would be agreeing with you.

That's why you made one, with CHEMTRAIL IN THE TITLE YET YOU DON'T BELIEVE THEY ARE USED.

Would you have decided to participate in this thread had the title said contrails instead of chemtrails?

a reply to: Blarneystoner

I see that all of the typical tactics are being employed here. It's always interesting to see the same guys hard at it, day after day and on several different sites as well.

And you haven't visited other sites, or is this the only one you come to?

Makes me wonder what those same guys do for a living that allows them the extraordinary amount of free time spent debunking chemtrails. Day after day, year after year... same guys... same song.

Just wondering why that matters, but have you ever thought that with smart phones people can access and post on here even while at work?

As far as the same song...that goes both ways there.

THAT WILL BE QUITE ENOUGH.

We will start discussing the issue, not each other.

That issue is chemtrails. It is most assuredly not other members.

KNOCK IT OFF.

as the topic is alledged chemtrails - one has to ask :

got evidence ?

yup " chemtrail " proponents - the ball is in your court

a reply to: Blarneystoner

See, the issue is the same on every thread. Chemtrailer, posts pictures of clouds and contrails, then makes amazing claims. One or more of us (people who don't believe in chemtrails) post some scientific evidence explaining why those pictures are probably just contrails. Then, the chemtrailer gets pissed off, and since they cannot attack the science, they attack the poster and call them a shill. You may have seen that happen.

How about instead of getting mad at people for posting, you present something to refute the facts we offer.

The point of this thread is that if chemtrail were supposed to fix global warming as quite a few sites claim, it isn't working. Would you care to discuss that?

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Blarneystoner

How about instead of getting mad at people for posting, you present something to refute the facts we offer.

To be fair there are many possible alternatives to producing such evidence - we have sen one here of attacking the messengers.

others include realizing you have been had, going away and not posting again due to embarrassment, posting false or nonsense evidence (which leads to more of the same), etc.

Don't feel as if posting evidence that actually contradicts well known science is your only option

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
I am willing to guess if he were delusional he would be agreeing with you.

My views on the whole chemtrail deal is on the fence, I don't think anyone in my position is delusional.

Why the hell are you insulting me anyway?

Why is it at people who claim to be "on het fence" with regard to chemtrails always seem to fall foul of the people who provide evidence that no such thing exists??

it's only anecdotal of course, but I'm struggling to think of a case where someone who claimed to be "trying to figure it out" (or similar) here on ATS took chemtrail believers to task for obvious errors....yet I can think of many where "shills" and debunkers have upset them.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Blarneystoner

See, the issue is the same on every thread. Chemtrailer, posts pictures of clouds and contrails, then makes amazing claims. One or more of us (people who don't believe in chemtrails) post some scientific evidence explaining why those pictures are probably just contrails. Then, the chemtrailer gets pissed off, and since they cannot attack the science, they attack the poster and call them a shill. You may have seen that happen.

How about instead of getting mad at people for posting, you present something to refute the facts we offer.

The point of this thread is that if chemtrail were supposed to fix global warming as quite a few sites claim, it isn't working. Would you care to discuss that?

I'm not mad... not in the least. I merely made an observation. It's not my feathers that are ruffled....

It occurs to me that asking for proof of what is quite possibly a huge government cover up is akin to asking for proof that the US was developing nuclear weapons during the Manhattan projects glory days. It's next to impossible. So while those who are convinced that Chemtrailing is real and occurs everyday try to find real tangible evidence, you guys have the easy task of debunking anything that comes down the pipe..... and then you all have the nerve to ridicule those good people. I thin kit's shameful... but it's your life. Live it how you will.

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
It occurs to me that asking for proof of what is quite possibly a huge government cover up is akin to asking for proof that the US was developing nuclear weapons during the Manhattan projects glory days. It's next to impossible. So while those who are convinced that Chemtrailing is real and occurs everyday try to find real tangible evidence, you guys have the easy task of debunking anything that comes down the pipe..... and then you all have the nerve to ridicule those good people. I thin kit's shameful...

Exactly. And thanks much for posting this. I'll add this:


See video at 50:23.

Location: Golden Valley Az, Mohave County

Date July, 2011

1) Resident 1: Alan DiCicco

Symptoms: Sudden respiratory illness, heart palpatations, sinus problems, coughing, metallic taste in his mouth, excessive mucous

After seeing excessive persistent jet exhaust and hearing about jet exhaust containing barium, strontium, and aluminum, he tells his doctor he wants to have his blood tested for these elements. Results: Elevated levels of barium (reporting limit 11, his level 190). He also tests the rainwater and finds high levels of aluminum, barium, and strontium. This means there's a positive correlation between what came down from the sky and what's in his blood.


2) Resident 2: Luca Zanna

Symptoms: Memory issues. Admits to feeling ill despite many years of good health, concurrently with the skies over AZ having more and more jet exhaust trails. He (and his wife) agree to have same blood test done as Alan DiCicicco. Results: Barium concentration 800% higher than what would be expected. His symptoms match those for barium toxicity.

3) Further testing: A pool of 20 people are also tested, not from Golden Valley AZ but the same general vicinity of the southwest. Result: 90% of participants showed results indicating very high levels of barium and aluminum.

It is widely known that barium and aluminum are among the chemical elements suggested by proponents like David Keith to be used in geoengineering aerosal sprays. Is it a mere coincidence that the individuals tested had high levels of barium in their blood? "Debunkers" want to quickly say yes. Some of us are more cautious before dismissing the evidence, especially when we too have become ill with respiratory illnesses for no explainable reason after many years of fine health.

Given the above individuals who had blood tests done, is this hard evidence supporting geoengineering experiments are being carried out without public consent? Not exactly, but there is a positive correlation here, and in a field study you cannot find a cause and effect relationship because of the inability to hold all variables constant. It's one of the reasons the people behind the toxic pollution know they can get away with this.

a reply to: Blarneystoner

If you actually look into the threads that exist, you might notice a trend. Nobody here claims it cannot happen, or it's categorically impossible. What is "debunked" are the lies and obvious garbage. that part is what I thought was the purpose of this site.

The part that attracts animosity and vitriol is when someone comes along and for whatever reason, decides that since we like to point out lies, we need to be called shills, and have our time here questioned. After 5 to 6 times a week, you are called a shill and questioned as to how on earth you have time to post on ATS, I assure you, it does get old.

When I engage another member here, as I did with Petros312, I asked some very basic, common sense questions, in hopes of having a dialog. As usual, since those answers might have led to actual discussion that may not point to the conspiracy being all-encompassing, it was met with the usual claims of shill.

I do apologize for venting all my frustrations on you, as you aren't a regular shill accuser on this forum.

It is my hope that at some point, a chemtrail "fence sitter" may actually engage in real conversation about facts, the lack of facts, lies, truth, and what may or may not be real.

a reply to: Petros312

And as my previous post to you included, were any other possibilities for this contamination looked at?

originally posted by: network dude
When I engage another member here, as I did with Petros312, I asked some very basic, common sense questions, in hopes of having a dialog. As usual, since those answers might have led to actual discussion that may not point to the conspiracy being all-encompassing, it was met with the usual claims of shill.

Very very interesting because I did not refer specifically to YOU as a "shill." My comment was that shills, trolls, and "debunkers" in general are why I do not waste my time here much anymore. I'm also sick of trying to figure out who is a troll, shill, or "debunker" and who is not. And to be clear, a "debunker" is someone who immediately refutes anything that appears to be an opinion held by a conspiracy theorist or "truther." A debunker is someone who hates all conspiracy theory and resorts to any tactic whatsoever to discredit the person positing a conspiracy, particularly by making fun of the person's ideas and smearing his or her character. It's disgusting. Yet, I have seen it since day one of being at ATS. I do see in this thread above that the moderator made an effort to clean up these types of comments.

originally posted by: network dude
It is my hope that at some point, a chemtrail "fence sitter" may actually engage in real conversation about facts, the lack of facts, lies, truth, and what may or may not be real.

Look at the language used in the above quote. It means that as of now, all the people who posit a theory about chemtrails are "fence sitters" who don't engage in a "real" conversation about facts. THIS is the language that alerts me to someone who is suspect. If the person is not a shill, then they are likely a "debunker," as defined above. If I'm wrong, then at least I'm not wasting my time with someone who could care less about what FACTS exist. I'm not making any direct accusations either way, in compliance with the forum decorum. Note in reference to the thread topic on Chemtrails: There are already a set of facts listed above! If anyone refuses to see a positive correlation in the above facts, they have another agenda other than the truth!

a reply to: Petros312

A debunker is a remover of bunk. Like the pictures of planes with tanks lined up on them. The one's that chemtrail believers post as "proof" that "they" are chemtrailing. Showing that the picture posted was used in a false way and thus either the poster lied, or was lied to, is what a debunker does.

Look at the language used in the above quote. It means that as of now, all the people who posit a theory about chemtrails are "fence sitters" who don't engage in a "real" conversation about facts. THIS is the language that alerts me to someone who is suspect. If the person is not a shill, then they are likely a "debunker," as defined above.

I refereed to a fence sitter because they might be open to discussion. A chemtrail believer, in my experience, has no desire to discuss anything other than their opinion. In the above quote, it seems I am either a shill, or worse yet, a

""debunker" is someone who immediately refutes anything that appears to be an opinion held by a conspiracy theorist or "truther." A debunker is someone who hates all conspiracy theory and resorts to any tactic whatsoever to discredit the person positing a conspiracy, particularly by making fun of the person's ideas and smearing his or her character.

The big thing here is, I am not the subject. You are not the subject. Please try to understand that.
The subject is Chemtrails. In this instance, you presented a video. I have asked questions about the video.

Is there any chance at all you would like to discuss the points I made about your video?

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Petros312
Is there any chance at all you would like to discuss the points I made about your video?

I repeat (with emphasis):

There are already a set of facts listed above! If anyone refuses to see a positive correlation in the above facts, they have another agenda other than the truth!

I offered information in my post above. That's my contribution to the thread topic, and I'm not having further discussion about it.