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

a reply to: waynos Thanks waynos for your well informed responses to my posts.
"No geoengineering proposals even involve creating contrails from aircraft at 30,000ft"
really? the last link I provided says otherwise:
"The greenhouse gases layer typically extends between about seven and thirteen kilometers above the earth's surface. The seeding of the stratosphere occurs within this layer."

I have never claimed contrail science is lacking in my own alleged chemtrail sightings. The reasons I believe are my own and not from rense, geowatch or any of those sites.
Please don't ask me why or to explain as I have already stated I have no desire to convince anyone or change anyone's mind. If I did I would start my own topic

I am truly done now with this thread, thanks everyone.

originally posted by: mrthumpy
You can, however, prove that chemtrails as described by the theory are physically impossible and the trails can't be anything other than contrails.

Wasn't it the whole point of the OP that the burden of proof also stands with debunkers?

"Chemtrail as described by the thoery are physically impossible." is a total lie that you might like to say to yourself but it has no basis whatsoever than your own beliefs.

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: mrthumpy
You can, however, prove that chemtrails as described by the theory are physically impossible and the trails can't be anything other than contrails.

Wasn't it the whole point of the OP that the burden of proof also stands with debunkers?

But in reality, the only thing any of us can prove conclusively is that the science to explain everything that has been displayed thus far exists and is undisputed. Nobody can prove chemtrails don't exist. In fact they do exist. NASA even created one and advertised it. It was short and came from a rocket, not a plane, but it was a trail of chemicals they intended to create and follow throughout it's dispersment.

To my knowledge, the main point that is continually ignored here is that those white puffy lines that form behind planes are most likely contrails. All the other fluff, is just that. If folks understood that fact and approached this as a "what if" scenario, there could not be a disagreement. But the empirical statements on both sides cause conflict.

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: mrthumpy
You can, however, prove that chemtrails as described by the theory are physically impossible and the trails can't be anything other than contrails.

Wasn't it the whole point of the OP that the burden of proof also stands with debunkers?

"Chemtrail as described by the thoery are physically impossible." is a total lie that you might like to say to yourself but it has no basis whatsoever than your own beliefs.

Not my beliefs, maths and physics. As I've stated there's no way any plane can carry enough chemical to spray trails like we see in the skies - even if they're only composed of just water ice.

Then there's the problem of how a trail can spread out without thinning and disappearing unless you add material to it

a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

I didn't see that passage of text in the last link you posted. While that is the upper end of airliner cruise altitude, my "none" would seem to be have been premature. Good catch.

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
The thing EVERY denier misses is that not one of you can prove that there aren't chemtrails just as I can't definitively prove that there are. Which, I believe, is the point of this thread.

Yes, but I said when you talk in terms of proving a negative it's a trap because a "debunker" of chemtrails will say you can't prove a negative. So, they think they have nothing to prove. However, to reiterate my point from the first post, there are two assertions commonly being made on both sides 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.

Both of these assertion bare the same burden of proof, i.e., you must go beyond simply explaining with scientific descriptions what is a "normal" contrail to "prove" that what is actually in the sky at any given time or location matches the description.

And an interesting response to being challenged:

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
A chemtrail to me is what appears to be a persistent contrail but may not be because of a number of factors such as estimated elevation of aircraft, other aircraft leaving non-persistent contrails at the same time, dispersion pattern of the particulate or condensate and the distinct difference between what appears to be a delivery system turning on and off and differing conditions in the atmosphere causing moisture to condense into a broken contrail.

--That's more sophisticated than I tried to explain in my thread In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorsist: Part 6. Contrail vs Chemtrail (link) in which I explain why there are reasons even a so-called "normal" contrail can validly be called a "chemtrail." But notice how an opponent tries to tell HIM what chemtrail conspiracy theory is:

originally posted by: mrthumpy
The gist of the chemtrail theory is that those big white lines across the sky are composed of condensed or frozen water vapour but are in fact trails of chemicals (usually aluminium, barium and strontium).

-- not really true if some believe there need not be any kind of chemicals as listed present in a contrail for there to be something suspect about the blue sky being obliterated by human-made clouds for the purposes of solar radiation management. I do realize that increased air traffic and the frequent use of hi-bypass jet engines are extraneous variables within the context of evaluating the "conspiracy," but the presence of these variables as alternate explanations does not "prove" contrails are being made in the sky only as a "side effect" of jet air traffic.

a reply to: Petros312

Did you know that we know what is contained inside of a persistent contrail?

but the presence of these variables as alternate explanations does not "prove" contrails are being made in the sky only as a "side effect" of jet air traffic.

How about 'ship trails', are they potentially part of the SRM program as well?

Or how about the persistent 'contrails' formed at ground level from car exhausts and human breath, as happens sometimes during really cold weather?

Is what we see in this clip part of some kind of chemtrail operation?

a reply to: payt69

Great video mate.

Thanks for posting it.

originally posted by: waynos
...the thing EVERY believer misses is that none of you can prove that any chemtrails were ever sprayed ever and that apart from websites like Rense, geoengineeringwatch and their ilk nobody else ever talked about chemtrails and every shred of supporting evidence ever presented has been very quickly, and very accurately, shown to be faked, misrepresented or an outright lie.

--As written, this is overgeneralized to an absurd degree. The only way this makes any sense is if you assume the ONLY concern of anyone who manages to get labelled a "chemtrail conspiracy theorist" is about persistent contrails, and that's not the case. The concern is much better phrased as "what is being sprayed in the sky," and whether this is indicative of a contrail or not is another matter. In fact, this is a good reason the term "chemtrail" is used. Debunkers are practically talking about the issue as if trying to encourage people to say "contrail conspiracy theory," even if only to make sure nobody thinks a contrail is a chemtrail. This talk about nothing but contrails is not representative of all the concerns that concerned people have when it comes to what is being sprayed in the sky. See In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 8. Contrails are NOT their only concern

The other thing you can see from the quote above is that, once again, a debunker is making a claim about all contrails in the sky being "normal" while claiming the burden of proof is only on the person who thinks otherwise. I explained why this is particularly unfair. If you still don't understand why, perhaps you need to reread the first post of the thread topic. If you disagree that debunkers do not have the same burden of proof as they keep saying all contrails in the sky at any given time and location match exactly what you read in descriptions and explanations (e.g., EPA pamphlets), then you should at the least admit you're making a leap of faith.

a reply to: Petros312

Funny, but my quote doesn't mention contrails AT ALL. As anyone can see. It is also factually correct as there is no proof of chemtrails being sprayed.

I notice that you deliberately quote me out of context as the original post was merely a paraphrased counterpoint to a similarly worded pro chemtrail post, but you omitted that one. I suppose the post I was paraphrasing isn't "over generalised to an absurd degree", only mine was. Tut tut. Still, keep promoting your own agenda, linking back to your own threads to prove yourself right and attempting to stigmatise and stifle debunkers. It is, after all, what we expect from you by now. Ciao sweetheart. xx

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312

Funny, but my quote doesn't mention contrails AT ALL. As anyone can see. It is also factually correct as there is no proof of chemtrails being sprayed.

--that's just a game of semantics, and you know it. Debunkers THEMSELVES constantly "correct" chemtrailers by telling them what they call a "chemtrail" is really a persistent contrail. So moot point there.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
Still, keep promoting your own agenda, linking back to your own threads to prove yourself right and attempting to stigmatise [sic] and stifle debunkers [sic]. It is, after all, what we expect from you by now.

Well after all, you can't engage in what is truly honest debate without resorting to things like off-topic posts and the tactics of anti-conspiracy theorists. Would you like examples? I would think it's better to NOT post anything at all rather than continue trying to sabotage my threads, but you see, that's an academic approach, not a militant one. So I don't expect debunkers to comply.

Now if anyone would like to refute my premise regarding the burden of proof as outlined in the actual topic of the thread, they're more than welcome.

a reply to: Petros312

I would think it's better to NOT post anything at all rather than continue trying to sabotage my threads, but you see, that's an academic approach, not a militant one. So I don't expect debunkers to comply.

Sabotage your thread...so telling the truth is now considered sabotage...learn something new every day.

Now if anyone would like to refute my premise regarding the burden of proof as outlined in the actual topic of the thread, they're more than welcome.

It has been, but here is the funny thing...you ignore them.

a reply to: Petros312


No, it's not semantics at all, you wrote this ;

The other thing you can see from the quote above is that, once again, a debunker is making a claim about all contrails in the sky being "normal"

The text quoted makes no such claim and, once again, doesn't even mention contrails at all. The claim is entirely in your own imagination. When I want to make a specific claim, I will type it out in plain English. Something you seem afraid of doing.

Well after all, you can't engage in what is truly honest debate without resorting to things like off-topic posts and the tactics of anti-conspiracy theorists. Would you like examples? I would think it's better to NOT post anything at all rather than continue trying to sabotage my threads,

I responded merely to you quoting me out of context and making up your own meaning of what I wrote. You cannot get much more dishonest than that. You should try to practice what you preach instead of being a hypocrite, given that attempting to undermine debunkers is your modus operandi.

Finally what's with this sic nonsense that you inserted into the quote? Do you imagine that you highlighted some error? How very intellectual of you (sarcasm).

Great opening generalisation about CT opponents OP.

Fairly typical chemtrail believer approach, "people who don't agree with me and my belief system are stupid, selfish, ignorant, uncaring government worshipping slaves"

I always find the chemtrail threads to be very telling.

a reply to: Petros312

--that's just a game of semantics, and you know it. Debunkers THEMSELVES constantly "correct" chemtrailers by telling them what they call a "chemtrail" is really a persistent contrail. [sic] (and a deluded non sequitur)

That's a load of knuckle-headed twattery and you know it. They're only told it's really a persistent contrail when THAT is what they are calling a "chemtrail".

No "debunker" claims chaff is a contrail. No "debunker" claims chemicals sprayed from a rocket at 30 miles or higher is a contrail.

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD

I have seen normal contrails and chemtrails AT THE SAME TIME above my house.

SO how are they different and how do YOU from ground level work out what is a chem or contrail I need some entertainment it's Monday !

Im just going to say it....you have to stop with the blatant lies man. Its very obvious for all to see.

Debunker do not "constantly "correct" chemtrailers by telling them what they call a "chemtrail" is really a persistent contrail"

You guys keep calling us shills...but i find Petros behavious rather odd.

a reply to: waynos

Then you're apparently a fan of obfuscation and "wordiness" yourself.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Petros312
No "debunker" claims chaff is a contrail. No "debunker" claims chemicals sprayed from a rocket at 30 miles or higher is a contrail.

You are off by a mile, and your post is not relevant to Part 5. If you refer to the discussion in Part 6. the point is that aluminum coated fiberglass is a portion of the concerns of the people who are being called chemtrail conspiracy theorists. I know why you deny that this is part of their concern as something they call a "chemtrail," but it's the plain truth.