It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 5. The Dreaded Burden of Proof

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Opponents of chemtrail conspiracy theorists usually don't want to hear about the many issues chemtrail conspiracy theories are associated with: distrust of the government, secret military activity, unethical experiments, stigmatization of a segment of the population by establishing social reality, apathy over pollution and environmental issues, solar radiation management, the likely effect of capitalism on geoengineering, etc. They want to continue their small talk about what is a "normal" contrail, what is a persistent contrail (i.e., it's only normal), and why persistent contrails sometimes turn into cirrus clouds (a "normal" phenomenon, given the bizarre notion that human beings are supposed to be making clouds in the sky). If anyone challenges this talk, debunkers keep saying the burden of proof is on YOU, the chemtrail conspiracy theorist, to "prove" what is in the air. That's an approach no better than propaganda.

The pattern of the dialog illustrated below is one that repeats many times between a so-called chemtrail conspiracy theorist and a person who believes chemtrailers are doing nothing but spreading a hoax:

Chemtrailer: What on earth are they spraying up there?

Debunker: It's just a condensation trail, or "contrail" for short.

Chemtrailer: That looks like they're spraying something in the sky. I think it should be called a "chemtrail."

Debunker: It's just the cloud left behind by the engine exhaust, and it's mostly frozen water vapor with a little ash from the jet fuel that forms because of the frigid temperatures and is regulated to some extent by relative humidity. When conditions are right, the trail left behind the airplane "persists" because of the realtive humidy and other factors, and sometimes, it even spreads out into a cirrus cloud. It's all there in this EPA pamphlet supported by nothing but sound scientific fact, and if you believe otherwise you're supporting nothing but a hoax.

Chemtrailer: How do you know that the jet aircraft left behind nothing but the expected contrail with no other aerosol or chemical in addition to it for research and experiements on something like geoengineering, the study of aerosol dispersol, intentional cirrus cloud coverage over a region, etc?

Debunker: It's only a normal contrail. Do YOU have any evidence that there's something else that was left behind by the jet aircraft?

Chemtrailer: No. How could anyone know the chemical constituents of the air in the vicinity of a contrail?

Debunker: It's quite simple to take air samples. Look, if you have no evidence to the contrary, why are you so reluctant to believe it's not just a normal contrail?

Chemtrailer: Because I really suspect there's some kind of spraying of aerosols going on using jet aircraft, I mean, given there's a history of things like open air testing in the USA that deliberately put the public's health at risk without their consent. I just don't think these experimenters will make safety their highest priority, especially given they can't always anticipate the consequences for what they do.

Debunker: If you don't believe that's just a normal contrail, the burden of evidence is on YOU, the chemtrail conspiracy theorist, to prove otherwise. I can't prove that there's no additional chemicals up there because you can't prove a negative. Maybe you should read up a bit more about how contrails have already been debunked because you sound like you know very little about it. A book on scientific research methods might help too. That way, you can understand that when we all say the contrails you see in the sky are normal, it's based firmly on nothing but facts.

Chemtrailer: So then do you have any evidence that the contrails I saw yesterday filling the sky were indeed "normal" and the jets up there weren't spraying something in addition to making contrails?

Debunker: What would they be spraying?

Chemtrailer: I heard that aluminum, barium, and sulphur were proposed as chemicals to be used for geoengineering experiments. Who knows what else they might be using?

Debunker: Those chemicals have nothing to do with a contrail. I explained above what a contrail is. Did you even bother to read the info?

Chemtrailer: No, I mean they could be spraying an aerosol or studying how to use airplanes to disperse aerosols.

Debunker: Look, those are normal contrails, and the burden of evidence is on YOU to prove that they're spraying some other chemical for some purpose.



--Do you see above how there isn't one but TWO assertions actually made about contrails, one on each side of the argument:
A. The contrails in the sky are not normal, i.e., I suspect something is being periodically sprayed by jet aircraft and contrail formation has an intentional purpose.
B. The contrails in the sky are normal, i.e., I know they always contain nothing but water and jet fuel ash and are the result of nothing but air traffic.

Each assertion is an empirical question that has verifiable evidence, but as illustrated by the typical dialog that occurs apparently the so-called "burden-of-evidence" is placed only on the chemtrailer. The "evidence" that the debunker presents is not evidence of what's actually in the sky. It's a description of a "normal contrail." They often turn their assertion into a negative statement giving others the impression that they are excused from the burden of proof because you can't prove a negative. The situation is unjust to the so-called chemtrail conspiracy theorist in at least three ways:

(continued below)




posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
(Continued from above)

1. Both sides actually have the burden of evidence
The proposition debunkers repeat in various ways, that these are just "normal contrails" we see in the sky today, is an assertion that requires empirical evidence. At the very least, a random sampling of the air in or very near a contrail in the sky on any given day should contain nothing but frozen H2O and the ash from jet fuel. Still, the results of this one-off study would not be conclusive because of #3 below. It's repeated by debunkers often that the "burden of evidence" is only on the chemtrailer to prove the contents of the air in and around a contrail varies from a normal contrail while at the same time they deny their equal "burden of evidence" to prove the contrail that someone photographed recently is composed of nothing but what would be expected. Moreover, because debunkers mostly make firm conclusions that nothing at all has ever been happening in the sky that deserves any suspicion each and every time you saw jet aircraft activity and the contrails that were sometimes trailing, their burden of evidence is actually much heavier. Hence, the familiar theme among debunkers, "there never have been any chemicals sprayed, and I can't prove it because you can't find evidence for something that doesn't exist," is a basic shirking of responsibility.

2. Debunkers confounding what's actually in the sky with info about normal contrail formation
The question chemtrailers often have is about what was in the sky when they photographed a series of persistent contrails. What persistent debunkers often do is address a matter concerning a) the actual condition of contrails in the sky and the associated activity of all the jet aircraft during a particular event, by substituting it with talk about b) the general information about contrails being the normal result of a jet engine. The later claim b is a substitution of the real question chemtrailers want answers for, and debunkers follow submitted photos with responses often in cut-and-pasted formats flowing with information explaining how contrails are typically formed in the sky, which is NOT evidence to support that the contrails in the sky at any given time or place are indicative of only the normal result of a jet engine and atmospheric conditions. Debunkers often make this argument after chemtrailers talk about [i]persistent contrails. Again, debunkers will paste quotes that are general information about why a contrail can persist or turn into a cirrus cloud, but by doing so the assertion made is essentially that all persistent contrails are nothing but normal contrails, and the further assumption from this is that their presence in the sky is the result of nothing but normal air traffic and has nothing to do with any experiment or geoengineering activity. Hence, this approach of debunkers is not about facts as much as it makes nothing but the basic assumption: all contrails in the sky are always "normal" contrails.

3. Random air sampling would be inconclusive "evidence"
Now, before you debunkers of anything and everything chemtrail get into your airplanes and fly up to 30,000 feet to grab that all important air sample, be aware that even if you were ambitious enough to get inside a condensation trail itself, you cannot rule out:

a) only an unidentifiable portion of all the jet aircraft in the sky leave behind more than a "normal" contrail
b) aerosols are sprayed only on certain days or under certain favorable conditions
c) geoengineering experiments or activities of some kind (e.g., solar radiation management) occur only randomly manifested by increased persistent contrails but no additional aerosols
d) geoengineering activities are only taking place for a small portion of the whole year and then cease
e) geoengineering experiments are only occurring in very specific locations and on varying schedules.

There are at least 5 factors here that create several possible scenarios that make it very difficult to know if even air sampling is telling you the whole truth. As debunkers overconfidently state that "proof" simply requires an air sample that contains unexpected chemicals, the real scenario could be as difficult as finding a needle in a very big haystack only on a certain day and only in a certain location.


When debunkers say the contrails we see on any given day look like normal contrails, then post information from sources that explain why condensation trails sometimes follow jet aircraft, whereby making the assertion that they must necessarily be normal contrails, it's just as much a leap of faith compared to chemtrailers who suspect that the persistent trails in the sky are associated in some way with aerosol sprays or some other activity of geoengineering, weather modification, etc. In contrast to hard evidence, it's a basic assumption that what a textbook or pamphlet says matches what's actually in the sky on any given day, and the repetition of this approach is no better than propaganda. But this won't stop debunkers from cutting and pasting the same info again and again. The job of debunkers isn't to be tentative about the truth. They have a goal, and it's to prove something is false.



edit on -05:00America/Chicago31Wed, 18 Mar 2015 11:56:27 -0500201527312 by Petros312 because: Bold type



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Extra ordinary claims, such as such as the chemtrail conspiracy claim, require extraordinary evidence.

Such trails have been shown in aerial photographs going as far back as WW2, so the conspiracists have their work cut out for them.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Yet again......
Film of WWII aircraft "no evil do'ers afoot" clearly show contrails… as stated above.
They do exist as has been talked about many, many times.

Let’s just say If and only IF, the govt. has to have thousands and thousands of flights EVRY DAY to make all those that you see.
Now, let’s just say that there is in fact some agency doing testing or worse. They do not have the ability to make all that you see.

I do not trust our govt. any more then you do....but.
I can say with near perfect certainty that commercial airlines " the one you see" are not doing any spraying.
The fuel gets tested several times a day to maintain integrity as not to harm the engines. It is test by the supplier and the airport.
The airlines then test it yet again to ensure it is as pure as it can be. I can say this as I have been in the airline industry for over 35 years and if and when a test comes up bad they stop the fuel process and change over to a known good tank, until such time as the issue is corrected.

As I said above, I do not trust the govt. and will put anything pass them. But the numbers would be so small that you would if you could notice it.

So, for the most part it is what it is..save a little percentage for the govt. and that we may never know about.

edit on 18-3-2015 by DogMeat because: typo



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

You forgot the "i don't remember persistent Contrails covering the sky when i was a kid".

If people can't find evidence in the air, then look at the ground, find the company's that makes the chemical's, the ones transporting the chemicals, the ones that mixes it with the fuel(if it's sprayed by fuel), the planes mounted to spray( if sprayed separate from fuel).

Thousands of people and documents should show traffic in those areas, and clues should be able to be found if such an activity exist on a BIG scale as said(world wide daily here and there).

That goes for both sides, if no spraying is going on though, nothing can be found which is bad for deniers as they can't prove it, and believers will say"it's because its top secret" or "something something...dark side".

I live right under the Scandinavian flight corridor, and see all the kind of contrails that exist, pretty much daily as i like to hang out my window for an hour or two after work, watch life go by, incl. the sky.
edit on 18-3-2015 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-3-2015 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Extra ordinary claims...require extraordinary evidence.


Well this slogan doesn't excuse debunkers from typical unfair debate tactics assigning the burden of proof to chemtrailers alone while they confound explanations of normal jet aircraft activity and contrail formation with what's actually happening in the sky at any given time and any given location, and that includes with or without the presence of contrails. In fact, given they don't see the error of this approach, they're doing it right here.

Moreover, given the history of open air testing that's occurred in the USA in and near populated areas, I don't find claims about toxins in the air to be "extraordinary."


edit on -05:00America/Chicago31Wed, 18 Mar 2015 12:18:43 -0500201543312 by Petros312 because: Omission



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312

Well this slogan doesn't excuse debunkers from typical unfair debate tactics assigning the burden of proof to chemtrailers alone while they confound explanations of normal jet aircraft activity and contrail formation with what's actually happening in the sky at any given time and any given location, and that includes with or without the presence of contrails. In fact, given they don't see the error of this approach, they're doing it right here.

Moreover, given the history of open air testing that's occurred in the USA in and near populated areas, I don't find claims about toxins in the air to be "extraordinary."


There's a big difference between such military tests and an extraordinary global conspiracy like the one you are suggesting.

I get the impression the chem-trail party are maybe folk that have never lived near an international airport...



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
You make good points.

Given the history of government and military experiments and programs

The claims that they do nothing... are extraordinary and therefore need proof.

Edit: Besides that, i do find the "contrails" and them creating clouds in specific conditions... also harmfull.

I, and my solar panels like sunshine. Do i get asked or compensated? Share in the profits?






edit on 18-3-2015 by EartOccupant because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Petrie, you captured the debunkers condescension & judgmental attitude perfectly.

Good part 5!



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312




Moreover, given the history of open air testing that's occurred in the USA in and near populated areas, I don't find claims about toxins in the air to be "extraordinary."


You do understand the reason for the tests, but hey as long as it fits your theory you are going to try and equate a non existing chemtrail to cold war tests...didn't work the first million times it was used for comparison why do you think it does now?



I don't find claims about toxins in the air to be "extraordinary."


And exactly what toxins are in a chemtrail that you don't already breathe in on a daily basis?

And when someone makes a claim as extraordinary then it needs to have the same evidence (extraordinary) to prove it exists, and with the same old evidence that keeps getting rehashed it will take that type of evidence to prove they exist.

And does it not make you wonder why we don't have any scientific tests of a chemtrail as it is just sprayed?

Also doesn't it seem odd that with all the so called spray planes worldwide we haven't seen one that hasn't been debunked before with pics of the whole operation...and think how many people would be needed to pull off chemtrails worldwide.
edit on 18-3-2015 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

You don't know also what, or how much they are testing.

Maybe a full scale test, by adding it to jet-fuel... ? Still a test !

In other words... you don't want to believe it, fair enough.

But you are also not capable of entertaining the "thought" and that is were it gets scary... Blind denial.

But you can't dismiss it. History has proven you wrong, governments and organisations are capable of doing these things without us knowing if they want to. With today knowledge it would be more surprising if they did not are in progress of testing in one way ore the other, and the scale .. Most civilians have no idea of scale of any kind, it is beyond their imagination.

I'm not saying it is happening, full scale. I only say you can not deny it.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Extra ordinary claims...require extraordinary evidence.


Well this slogan doesn't excuse debunkers from typical unfair debate tactics assigning the burden of proof to chemtrailers alone while they confound explanations of normal jet aircraft activity and contrail formation with what's actually happening in the sky at any given time and any given location, and that includes with or without the presence of contrails. In fact, given they don't see the error of this approach, they're doing it right here.

Moreover, given the history of open air testing that's occurred in the USA in and near populated areas, I don't find claims about toxins in the air to be "extraordinary."



There was just a thread about the British gov doing open air testing on their populous.

They used microbes etc, and then waited for groups to get sick in mass. To see what the prevailing wind patwrna were.

Thus they could plan for fallout from a nuclear bomb.

So it had a good intention but a nefarious methodology.

This is not limited to Britain obviously.

I say anyone on a conspiracy site that would guarantee without a doubt that chemtrails aren't real, needs to adjust their tinfoil hat, it is on way too tight.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Head on over to the pilots rumour network and see what thousands of pilots have to say.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick




So it had a good intention but a nefarious methodology.


It had a good intention, really? Secretly spraying citizens, intentionally getting them sick to monitor wind patterns are considered good intentions?



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
Petrie, you captured the debunkers condescension & judgmental attitude perfectly.

Good part 5!


meh...i think its acceptable to be a bit condescending to adults who consistently argue with childish reasoning and go against established scientific proof.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Extra ordinary claims...require extraordinary evidence.


Well this slogan doesn't excuse debunkers from typical unfair debate tactics assigning the burden of proof to chemtrailers alone while they confound explanations of normal jet aircraft activity and contrail formation with what's actually happening in the sky at any given time and any given location, and that includes with or without the presence of contrails. In fact, given they don't see the error of this approach, they're doing it right here.

Moreover, given the history of open air testing that's occurred in the USA in and near populated areas, I don't find claims about toxins in the air to be "extraordinary."




I say anyone on a conspiracy site that would guarantee without a doubt that chemtrails aren't real, needs to adjust their tinfoil hat, it is on way too tight.


- The air and soil are tested every day by thousands of independent labs worldwide....nothing found.
- Dropping anything at 30,000 is an idiotic way of getting things to fall on people as you have no NO idea where the particulates will land. This is not up for debate.
- 20 years of spraying. Not a SINGLE shred of evidence.
- 20 years of spraying...no sign of anyone dying off, getting ill, becoming superhuman...whatever you chemmies think the reason for spraying is this week.

Sorry...but im just going to say it...you have to be a bit of a gullible fool to believe this ridiculous conspiracy. And thats me being very polite.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
This Air Force document from 1996 mentions "injection of chemical vapors" on page 21 as one possible method to achieve "Communications Dominance via Ionospheric Modification". LINK
I have seen normal contrails and chemtrails AT THE SAME TIME above my house. Interestingly, the last time I saw this happen a few days ago, the contrail was at a much higher altitude than the chemtrail. I have video on my iphone of the event. If anyone is actually interested in seeing it, I could upload it to youtube. There is plenty of evidence in the form of patents, government documents and independent research that weather modification is real. Anyone who tries to deny that fact is either a fool or a dis-info agent. I have been looking for a thread on this site that I read a few years ago about someone who was documenting "chemtrails" by analyzing flight patterns of commercial airlines in connection with visual sighting of chemtrails. It turned out that there were many 'undocumented' flights associated with chemtrail sightings according to the website he was using to verify each plane. On topic I will say that OP really nailed the deniers' tactics. Great job!
additional links:
Patent
patent
patent
edit on 3/18/2015 by OveRcuRrEnteD because: added links to a few of the MANY patents for spraying aerosols into the atmosphere

Geo-Engineering Cost Analysis
article
edit on 3/18/2015 by OveRcuRrEnteD because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

You are funny.

So we know they did "small" scale tests on all kind of earosols and delivery types. Sometimes in urban area's.

Now tell me, did you read the next day in the newspaper there was something wrong in air or soil ?

Because you state it is tested every day. And we know they have done tests.. so by your logic, there should be alarm reports from those days.

But there are not... how can that be...

History proofs you wrong.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
I have seen normal contrails and chemtrails AT THE SAME TIME above my house. Interestingly, the last time I saw this happen a few days ago, the contrail was at a much higher altitude than the chemtrail. I have video on my iphone of the event. If anyone is actually interested in seeing it, I could upload it to youtube.


Petros312, this is what I have an issue with.

Here we have a person, who is probably very nice and means well. Am I supposed to believe that this poster can identify the chemical makeup of something 6 miles away by eyesight alone?


Oh, and don't forget this part:



Anyone who tries to deny that fact is either a fool or a dis-info agent.



Keep up the good fight. You are a true champion to the underdog.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I never claimed to know the chemical makeup. Only that one was an obvious contrail and the others weren't. So, tell me how you know that "persistent contrails" have no chemicals in them?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join