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 6. Contrail vs. Chemtrail

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
Do chemtrail conspiracy sites themselves defines chemtrail as being a deliberate spray that is different from a contrail? = YES

They are speaking about the pollution contained within them, as well as the possibility that there may be additives for purposes like solar radiation management, and that contrails may be intentional for the purposes of solar radiation management WITHOUT any added chemicals, and in both cases without disclosure to the public. Hence, you are, once again, just trying to overgeneralize about anyone who might be labelled a chemtrail conspiracy theorist to place them all into a nice neat box of freaks.



originally posted by: waynos
Let's spell it out, from a debunking perspective;

Yes, and note also the "debunking perspective" has the following half-truths and holes in it:



originally posted by: waynos
What is a contrail? = a visible trail of water ice.

Incomplete answer, and one designed to focus only on how a contrail is as "normal" as a cloud. According to NASA, in addition to water ice:

They also are likely to contain aircraft exhaust products (including soot and dissolved gases like sulfur dioxide)


Moreover, the people who get labelled as "chemtrailers" are not simply talking about contrails in the sky. They are concerned about "clouds" that are being deployed for experimental purposes, geoengineering, and weather modification, and that's not my doing. Read Wikipedia, as I mentioned here: In Defense of CHemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 2. Social Reality



originally posted by: waynos
Does jet exhaust contain pollutant chemicals? = YES.
Does jet exhaust contain these same pollutants whether a contrail is visible or not? = YES
Does the absence of a visible contrail mean that the air is free of pollutants and jet exhaust? = NO

Are you trying to provide three reasons for why what follows behind jet aircraft should indeed be called a "chemical trail" or "chemtrail" for short in addition to a "condensation trail" or "contrail" for short? Looks like convincing reasons to me.



originally posted by: waynos
Do chemtrail conspiracy sites themselves defines chemtrail as being a deliberate spray that is different from a contrail? = YES

I realize that some people who are labelled chemtrail conspiracy theorists do have outlandish ideas about depopulation. They do not represent all individuals who get labelled as "chemtrail conspiracy theorists." You seem to refuse to believe the concern of all these people is not simply about some "poison" intentionally sprayed to deliberately harm the environment. It's also about the awareness of what is not simply "normal" about a contrail when it comes to their increasing presence in the sky, and Rosalind Peterson explains this. But the perspective that it is all just "normal" is unfortunately the result of perceptions of pollution being something that is quite "normal," and I believe it's manifested by such great resistance when someone refers to a contrail as a "chemtrail."



originally posted by: waynos
THEREFORE, is trying to redefine a contrail as a chemtrail and fixating upon it a complete red herring because chemtrails require, by definition, for there to be a trail and 'no trail' DOESNT mean clean air and no pollution? = CORRECT.

Is it just me or is that conclusion just a bit garbled? You did say that you were illustrating the "debunking perspective." Very telling.



edit on -05:00America/Chicago30Fri, 03 Apr 2015 12:01:43 -0500201543312 by Petros312 because: Omission




posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
Do chemtrail conspiracy sites themselves defines chemtrail as being a deliberate spray that is different from a contrail? = YES

They are speaking about the pollution contained within them, as well as the possibility that there may be additives for purposes like solar radiation management, and that contrails may be intentional for the purposes of solar radiation management WITHOUT any added chemicals, and in both cases without disclosure to the public. Hence, you are, once again, just trying to overgeneralize about anyone who might be labelled a chemtrail conspiracy theorist to place them all into a nice neat box of freaks.


Really, so how about their claim that contrsils never persist for more than a few minutes so anything that persists must be a chemtrail? How does that fit in with your comment above? Is it in any way credible to you? I'm not over generalising at all. Just the opposite, I'm asking about a specific point.




originally posted by: waynos
Let's spell it out, from a debunking perspective;

Yes, and note also the "debunking perspective" has the following half-truths and holes in it:



originally posted by: waynos
What is a contrail? = a visible trail of water ice.

Incomplete answer, and one designed to focus only on how a contrail is as "normal" as a cloud. According to NASA, in addition to water ice:

They also are likely to contain aircraft exhaust products (including soot and dissolved gases like sulfur dioxide)


Yet again you twist the words that are written to suit yourself. A contrail IS a trail of frozen water ice. Of course they may also contain exhaust products and soot, because the air does, rain does, those products are present in the wake of any powered aircraft, so citing them as part of a contrail (or worse, potentially the function of a contrail) when the only thing unique to the contrail is the presence of WATER ICE is disingenuous, simplistic thinking. The way you accuse others of generalising and simplifying is quite transparent, especially when you follow it up with simplification of your own like this. One has to look harder to find pollution than just pointing at a contrail.



[originally posted by: waynos
Does jet exhaust contain pollutant chemicals? = YES.
Does jet exhaust contain these same pollutants whether a contrail is visible or not? = YES
Does the absence of a visible contrail mean that the air is free of pollutants and jet exhaust? = NO

Are you trying to provide three reasons for why what follows behind jet aircraft should indeed be called a "chemical trail" or "chemtrail" for short in addition to a "condensation trail" or "contrail" for short? Looks like convincing reasons to me.


I'm not surprised, the confirmation bias is strong in you Padawan.
What I'm REALLY saying (and how sad that this is necessary) is that pollution is pollution and is ALWAYS present behind an aircraft, while a contrail is a contrail and ISNT always present. Pollution is a constant, Contrsils depend on weather. Making them synonymous is puerile. Complex stuff for you to grasp I know.





originally posted by: waynos
Do chemtrail conspiracy sites themselves defines chemtrail as being a deliberate spray that is different from a contrail? = YES

I realize that some people who are labelled chemtrail conspiracy theorists do have outlandish ideas about depopulation. They do not represent all individuals who get labelled as "chemtrail conspiracy theorists." You seem to refuse to believe the concern of all these people is not simply about some "poison" intentionally sprayed to deliberately harm the environment. It's also about the awareness of what is not simply "normal" about a contrail when it comes to their increasing presence in the sky, and Rosalind Peterson explains this. But the perspective that it is all just "normal" is unfortunately the result of perceptions of pollution being something that is quite "normal," and I believe it's manifested by such great resistance when someone refers to a contrail as a "Chemtrail"
.

You believe wrong. Chemtrail theory is concerned with a deliberate spraying operation (and various results of that, some of which you acknowledge as ludicrous, others you give credence to). It is not that the things you describe might happen as a simple consequence of aviation. There is already a group that has such concerns, they are called environmentalists and some of them believe in chemtrails and many don't. Your determined effort to conflate these two concerns is misguided. If people who DONT think chemtrails are deliberately sprayed want to call themselves chemtrail conspiracists, that's their fault. Personally, I believe you just made it up.






originally posted by: waynos
THEREFORE, is trying to redefine a contrail as a chemtrail and fixating upon it a complete red herring because chemtrails require, by definition, for there to be a trail and 'no trail' DOESNT mean clean air and no pollution? = CORRECT.

Is it just me or is that conclusion just a bit garbled? You did say that you were illustrating the "debunking perspective." Very telling.





Very telling indeed that you cannot understand the statement. Or maybe you just pretend not to?
edit on 3-4-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-4-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Three points:


originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
Really, so how about their claim that contrsils [sic] never persist for more than a few minutes so anything that persists must be a chemtrail? How does that fit in with your comment above? Is it in any way credible to you?

--It doesn't apply at all, and indeed some of the people who are labelled "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" don't understand that contrails as human-made clouds have been a phenomenon in the sky for many years. The degree of contrails in the sky, how is it they qualify as a form of pollution, if they are deliberate at times or in certain locations, the use of jet aircraft to deploy what may look like a contrail but is actually something for research purposes, these are all different matters. Moreover, to explain what is a "normal" contrail does just about nothing to "prove" that what appears to be a contrail at any given time or location matches this description, and to deny this is simply a bad scientific approach.


originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
Chemtrail theory is concerned with a deliberate spraying operation (and various results of that, some of which you acknowledge as ludicrous, others you give credence to). It is not that the things you describe might happen as a simple consequence of aviation.

--Like most debunkers, you intentionally focus too much on concerns about contrail formation, possibly because it's easy to debunk in the manner most debunkers use. Contrails are only one portion of what chemtrailers talk about. See In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 8. Contrails are NOT their only concern


originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
There is already a group that has such concerns, they are called environmentalists and some of them believe in chemtrails and many don't. Your determined effort to conflate these two concerns is misguided.

--I am not the one who decided to call people like Rosalind Peterson a "conspiracy theorist." That's what OPPONENTS of environmentalists like Peterson did to weaken her concerns. So, you can blame your own fellow debunkers for that.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Re my point that chemtrail conspiracy is concerned with deliberate spraying, rather than being as a consequence of aviation itself, I noticed you link to your own thread again rather than link to a chemtrail site that doesn't claim chemtrails are the result of a deliberate spraying operation. Was that because you couldn't find one?

Is Rosalind Peterson also a debunker since she said she's seen no evidence that chemtrails exist? Did she debunk herself?



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos




Is Rosalind Peterson also a debunker since she said she's seen no evidence that chemtrails exist? Did she debunk herself?


You know I really never thought about it like that, but yes she did.

Imagine that someone insisting chemtrails are real used a debunker for a source...what a wacky world we live in.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: waynos
Re my point that chemtrail conspiracy is concerned with deliberate spraying, rather than being as a consequence of aviation itself...

--Of course, I expect that debunkers only focus on the former and not the latter when the truth is the people who are being called chemtrail conspiracy theorists are concerned with both plus the work of the military plus the work of researchers for geoengineering plus the work done for weather modification (cloud seeding). If you disagree, I'm just going to have to keep linking my other posts rather than repeat myself here. That's the primary purpose of linking to my former posts. So when you say:


originally posted by: waynos
...I noticed you link to your own thread again rather than link to a chemtrail site that doesn't claim chemtrails are the result of a deliberate spraying operation. Was that because you couldn't find one?

--it's obvious you a) aren't actually reading my thread topics (or not comprehending), and b) want readers to think I have no evidence for my claims when the truth is every one of my thread topics contains evidence in the form of links to other sources of information including so-called "chemtrail sites." Moreover, it is not only a "deliberate" spraying of something in the sky that is of concern to people called chemtrail conspiracy theorists. It is unregulated air traffic creating increasing persistent contrails as well as any kind of open air testing done without the public's awareness or consent.


originally posted by: waynos
Is Rosalind Peterson also a debunker since she said she's seen no evidence that chemtrails exist? Did she debunk herself?

--You're putting words in her mouth. She did not state specifically "there is no evidence that chemtrails exist." In In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 7. Steward of the Earth I quoted her as saying:

"I find that the direct proof to link up who's doing what...and also I can tell you that in ten years of research, other than aluminum coated fiberglass, chaff releases by the US military, I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions. Now, I can prove that the rocket programs in the United States are releasing trimethylaluminum, aluminum oxides, barium. I can prove the rocket programs in the United States are just coating us with toxic chemicals all the time, and these programs are listed at NASA, NOAA, the US Air Force, the US Navy...I mean there's tests going on all the time. The US Navy care program is a prime example. So I can prove, I have so many documents I couldn't even put them all on the Internet even if I tried, because there are Pentagon reports, there's all kinds of reports dating back twenty, thirty years. When it come to proving what the jets are releasing, I don't have the documentation and I don't have a single study. I don't have a single, solitary, verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminum coated fiberglass by military aircraft. So, there's a differentiation for me in putting my name or associating myself with something where I can't back it up. Now, if anyone's got direct proof, they've got university studies, if you've got documents, government documents, if you've got reports, then that makes a big difference. But right now, after ten years of research, I can't do it."

1. Jet fuel emissions are a chemical trail, albeit they have little to do with a persistent contrail, but this does not matter given the concerns of the people being labelled "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" includes concern about jet fuel emissions. See In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 8. Contrail Are NOT Their Only Concern www.abovetopsecret.com...

2. Nowhere in this quoted paragraph does Rosalind Peterson use the term "chemtrail."

3. Despite #2, Peterson is clearly talking about the "chemical trail" that is left behind in the form of trimethylaluminum, aluminum oxides, barium from programs carried out by NASA, NOAA, and the US Air Force and Navy. She says literally, "there's testing going on all the time." In the video, she also clearly speaks about the hazards of persistent contrails, which can in some ways also be considered a type of "chemical trail," even if they are largely composed of H2O. I explained above why the trend exists to "normalize" the phenomenon.

So you are, once again, simply making reference to how Rosalind Peterson is not talking about a persistent contrail as if it's nothing but a toxic cloud sprayed in the sky to poison people --something that debunkers focus on. It's a moot point. How many different ways do you need to be shown that contrails are only a portion of the concerns of some of the people who are being labelled "chemtrail conspiracy theorists?"--and for some, added toxins aren't the issue. I realize you want to keep fitting all of these people into a faceless box of freaks who don't know what a contrail is, but it's obvious reductionism at this point.

And it's about time someone exposed the reductionism.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

1: so just link to a chemtrail site that doesn't claim that chemtrails are deliberately sprayed and you have proved that point. I believe you are wrong and won't find one.

2: re Rosalind Peterson, she still said she had seen no evidence that jets are spraying, which is exactly what I said, so what are you arguing about?

3: your rant about reductionism and trying to declare "what I mean" is, yet again, off topic, pointless and, above all, wrong. If you want to see what I mean, just read the damn words and stop fantasising.
edit on 17-4-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312

Is it just me or is that conclusion just a bit garbled? You did say that you were illustrating the "debunking perspective." Very telling.


It is just you, and yes, you thinking it is garbled IS very telling......



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   

1. Jet fuel emissions are a chemical trail, albeit they have little to do with a persistent contrail, but this does not matter given the concerns of the people being labelled "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" includes concern about jet fuel emissions.


So how about all those emissions generated by industries other than aviation, which are responsible for 98% of all pollution? Am I a chemtrail CT if I'm worried about those too? They are chemicals being ejected in the air after all, creating a trail of chemicals (a chemtrail, if you will).



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

I think what you wrote is pretty right on. I'm guilty of calling them contrails but indeed, they DO contained chemicals (by products of the jet fuel combustion) and are really "chemtrails". I do not agree with the idea that the government or some other nefarious outfit is spraying some mind control drug on the human population.



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: wrkn4livn

Yeah but everything contains chemicals - your breath contains chemicals - are you therefore breathing out chemtrails??



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: wrkn4livn
In that case the "chemtrail" is invisible.
It is only the cloud of ice crystals which form the contrail which are visible. Nowadays we don't see a lot of exhaust from jets.

Oh wait. Water is also a chemical.

edit on 5/2/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join