Operation Indigo Skyfold

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

Cute. Metabunk.org.

Look its very simple, tell us whats wrong with whats posted on metabunk. Show Mike something incorrect and i gurantee you he will change it or remove it instantly...

But something tell me you wont will you?

originally posted by: VikingWarlord
I joined this site to seek knowledge and hear alternative points of view not often talked about in the "MSM". I was sure that on a "conspiracy" site that posters would be able to have dialog with one another, free of ridicule. Most of the time, this has been the case, however the same people show up to this forum in droves with nothing but ridicule and borderline mockery. These same posters, for whatever reason, see fit to "convince" all people who might think there is a possible conspiracy involving "chemtrails" that they are delusional or lack the understanding of the science behind contrails. I am interested in the geo-engineering angle of that discussion, however it seems these posters have nothing better to do than set anyone straight who thinks there may be something to this. It is alarming that they have stayed so persistent in their en devour without fail, on every single one of theses threads. What is the incentive for this behavior? Why can't these people simply avoid these discussions, so free thought can be openly expressed without the fear of ridicule? Whether or not there is substance to the "chemtrail" conspiracy is irrelevant. I have great concern that this site is becoming a place that those of us who dare to question will be increasingly driven off sites like this, not wanting to get "mobbed" by the resident "experts", for simply entertaining an idea.

I enjoy the chemtrail conspiracy posts. They are so idiotic thats its entertaining. I also enjoy aviation topics. So both fit.

Chemtrailers deserve ridicule in my opinion. They believe known liars, hang on to their every word. People who continue to KNOWINGLY decieve their followers. They dont listen to logic, dont try to learn the basic science...and say stupid things like "i can tell a chemtrail with just my eyes"


So silly.

Well for those chemtrails are real crowd could you possibly answer a question for me?

You see this is the same question asked in pretty much every chemtrail thread here at ATS, so can one of you possibly answer it...so here we go.

How does one know chemtrails actually exist when not one person has ever gone up and tested one while it was in the air?

And the nonsense about my cousins uncle's friend of a friend told me they were flying a chemtrail plane is nothing more than a lie, and until you or that person can provide verifiable evidence to back their claim, guess what it's a lie.

So get out there and get this so called evidence that has never been shown in over 20 years this hoax has been around.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Cute. Metabunk.org.

You do know that there is an open challenge at metabunk to find anything that is wrong and the owner will fix whatever is shown to be wrong...have you done that and reported what you found was wrong?

You see it has never been done, nobody has been able to find what is wrong there...have you?

a reply to: VikingWarlord

I was sure that on a "conspiracy" site that posters would be able to have dialog with one another, free of ridicule.

You joined a site that the motto is Deny Ignorance, and you have a problem when other's do that concerning chemtrails...why?

Here is how you stop what you think is ridicule...show proof chemtrails exist. That is a very simple way to do that.

These same posters, for whatever reason, see fit to "convince" all people who might think there is a possible conspiracy involving "chemtrails" that they are delusional or lack the understanding of the science behind contrails.

DO you understand the science behind contrails?

If so can you explain the science behind so called chemtrails, and why we have no evidence that proves their existence?

And the fact that what little evidence that is presented has been debunked every time it is presented doesn't make you say hey maybe there really isn't something to the chemtrail hoax?

If your looking for those who want to push a hoax with no evidence to back the claim then there are many chemtrail sites that will do that for you...ATS isn't one of them, sorry it bothers you.

I have great concern that this site is becoming a place that those of us who dare to question will be increasingly driven off sites like this, not wanting to get "mobbed" by the resident "experts", for simply entertaining an idea.

Why because we don't like to push hoaxes. As for the resident experts...you can verify everything we post on your own if you feel the need to.

WHy can't the same be said for the chemtrail experts that are supposedly finding all this evidence of their existence?

originally posted by: payt69
Just make sure you can substantiate whatever ideas you're going to promote here, since people will want to go to the bottom of them if they sound unconventional.

Unconventional?

Rather than incorrect?

Your using the word “unconventional” suggests to me that you are protecting a mainstream, official story rather than searching for the truth.

originally posted by: waynos
You have no interest in bunk information being exposed for what it is?

One person’s “bunk information” is another person’s truth. The way to have a civilized discussion is to respect that.

a reply to: ConnectDots

One person’s “bunk information” is another person’s truth. The way to have a civilized discussion is to respect that.

No one persons bunk is just that bunk...it doesn't become truth until it is proven to be that, until then it is still bunk.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: payt69
Just make sure you can substantiate whatever ideas you're going to promote here, since people will want to go to the bottom of them if they sound unconventional.

One person’s “bunk information” is another person’s truth. The way to have a civilized discussion is to respect that.

No it bloody isnt. The truth is the truth.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: payt69
Just make sure you can substantiate whatever ideas you're going to promote here, since people will want to go to the bottom of them if they sound unconventional.

Unconventional?

Rather than incorrect?

Your using the word “unconventional” suggests to me that you are protecting a mainstream, official story rather than searching for the truth.

Of course that's what it suggests to you, since you're one of those 'dot connectors'. Too bad the dots are just in your mind though. I don't think there's a choice of words that's going to change that, since you're only going to see what your mind tells you to see.. and right now you see a government agent around every tree who is defending some 'official story', it seems.

What I mean with unconventional is a concept that deviates from known physics. Persistent contrails can be explained in terms of conventional physics. So if you tell us a story which requires us to believe something other than said physics, that's going to raise some big question marks.

And that's what's been going on with the chemtrail myth so far: chemtrail believers have to believe that conventional physics CAN'T explain persisting contrails, because otherwise the whole house of cards falls apart. And indeed it has fallen apart long ago, over and over again, but for some reason it takes rather long for the believers to catch on

originally posted by: waynos
You have no interest in bunk information being exposed for what it is?

One person’s “bunk information” is another person’s truth. The way to have a civilized discussion is to respect that.



I'd like to see you post an example of something that is truth to one person, and bunk to another. Truth is not an opinion, right? This is a good example of an unconventional stance, and to me that explains the kind of thinking required to believe in chemtrail nonsense.

originally posted by: payt69
.. and right now you see a government agent around every tree who is defending some 'official story', it seems.

I don’t think you’re a government agent, no. But you seem to have in your mind a need to protect the status quo.

But there is no need to focus on members. The topic is chemtrails.

originally posted by: payt69
What I mean with unconventional is a concept that deviates from known physics.

Here’s the problem.

There’s much disagreement in the world of physics. That is, if alternative physics is even allowed into a discussion. Without ridicule, that is.

originally posted by: payt69
Truth is not an opinion, right?

I know what you’re saying but the problem is, the truth, or facts, are alleged to be so and there are differences of opinion about what they are. Just because things are written in textbooks or reported on the media or stated by authority figures doesn’t necessarily make them correct.

Knowledge continually gets updated.

a reply to: ConnectDots

There’s much disagreement in the world of physics. That is, if alternative physics is even allowed into a discussion. Without ridicule, that is.

What 'alternative physics' might you have in mind to explain the ability of a chemical 'spray' to increase in volume as it spreads across the sky?

Here's an off-the-wall question. When are "chemtrails" supposed to have begun?

Are they recent, or have they been going on for 40, 50, 100 years? When are they supposed to have started?

originally posted by: Bedlam
Here's an off-the-wall question. When are "chemtrails" supposed to have begun?

Are they recent, or have they been going on for 40, 50, 100 years? When are they supposed to have started?

Depends on who you ask. They used to swear blind that nobody had seen these trails before the mid 90s but since all the photos, videos and accounts of persistent trails in WWII made that claim look foolish they've changed the story to say it's been going on since then. You still get some who will swear these trails never appeared in their skies until the last few years though

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

None.

I was speaking in a general way about the arguments that go on regarding subjects in the world of science and technology.

originally posted by: mrthumpy
They used to swear blind that nobody had seen these trails before the mid 90s but since all the photos, videos and accounts of persistent trails in WWII made that claim look foolish they've changed the story to say it's been going on since then.

Watching a 1968 program, the sky behind the actors in one shot is absolutely full of persistent contrails.

a reply to: ConnectDots

None.

Ok, but if you wouldn't mind sticking to the topic with your posts it would be appreciated.



ETA: Don't you think there should be some sort of an explanation for the phenomenon that is consistent with observations and claims?

Despite what some believe, ''Gov is evil'' does not cause magical behavior of chemicals.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: mrthumpy
They used to swear blind that nobody had seen these trails before the mid 90s but since all the photos, videos and accounts of persistent trails in WWII made that claim look foolish they've changed the story to say it's been going on since then.

Watching a 1968 program, the sky behind the actors in one shot is absolutely full of persistent contrails.

Yeah that's the kind of awkward thing that made them change their story. You have to wonder if the people who swore that these trails never existed before the mid 90s actually remember what they used to claim, I'm guessing no

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: payt69
.. and right now you see a government agent around every tree who is defending some 'official story', it seems.

I don’t think you’re a government agent, no. But you seem to have in your mind a need to protect the status quo.

Well that's a relief then.

As far as status quo: I don't mind if it gets changed. But for that to happen, you'd need to come up with something rather good, and so far what I've seen from the chemtrail community doesn't qualify as such. In fact everything I've seen can be shown to be bunk. The subject of this thread is a case in point: A friend of a cousin talking about chemtrails and claiming to be a pilot. Nothing can be verified, except for the fact that these people talk utter nonsense. I hope you don't expect me to believe such garbage right?

But there is no need to focus on members. The topic is chemtrails.

True, so let's try to focus on that then.

There’s much disagreement in the world of physics. That is, if alternative physics is even allowed into a discussion. Without ridicule, that is.

No there isn't. Not as far as contrails is concerned anyway. The physics concerning contrails are not controversial, and all scientists agree on what causes them. In fact it's pretty basic physics. There is no such thing as 'alternative physics' when it comes to this topic.

So I'm not sure what kind of 'alternative physics' you're referring to. I've never seen a chemtrail believer make a case for such alternative physics anyway. But I do see why you'd need alternative physics, because in real physics, contrails can and do persist (given the right conditions), and since one of the fundamental pillars of chemtrail-thinking is that contrails CAN'T persist, you need 'alternative' physics.

So present these alternative physics then, so we can all have a look at it and see if it holds any water. I can't wait to see what experiments have been conducted to lay the foundation of these physics, read the papers, and finally find out what theory lies at the foundation of an alternative physics that does allow for (cirrus)clouds, but not for persisting contrails, even though they're the same thing. So bring it on!

I know what you’re saying but the problem is, the truth, or facts, are alleged to be so and there are differences of opinion about what they are. Just because things are written in textbooks or reported on the media or stated by authority figures doesn’t necessarily make them correct.

Knowledge continually gets updated.

Well that's the beauty of science. You can go out and test all the theories that are presented in papers. It's not just a matter of alleging things to be so. That wouldn't result in a working model, because, as you say, if left unfounded, everyone has a different opinion. That's why scientists have to be able to support their hypothesis, and conduct tests and have their results peer reviewed and reproduced independently. That's how science works.

And yes, fringe areas of science do get updated. But the kind of physics required to explain clouds and persisting contrails has been in place for a long time now, and hasn't been challenged by any credible alternative hypothesis. The only ones challenging the fact that contrails can persist are chemtrail believers.. they just state that contrails can't persist, and never seem to bother explaining why that is the case. I''ve asked lots and lots of believers why they believe a contrail can't persist and what physics supports that idea, but never got an answer. You may be the first one to rise to the occasion though, but I'm not holding my breath.

a reply to: Bedlam

We should stop using the term "chemtrails"?

I noticed this is the Global Research article about the Case Orange report:

Instead, the writers prefer the term ‘persistent contrails’ to describe the phenomenon since all contrails are chemtrails. ‘Persistent contrails’ distinguishes those that contain weather-altering additives from those that represent normal aircraft exhaust that dissipates after a few seconds or minutes.

www.globalresearch.ca...

a reply to: ConnectDots

Do you believe contrails can persist? can they last for hours if conditions are right?