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.

 

Lets settle contrails vs nano dispersion

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow




So you simply look at the first .jpg and make your decision from there?? REALLY?


Oh no, I made my decision when I saw the evidence being presented...Such as these.

What in the world are they spraying....been debunked here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is many more but I just didn't feel like wasting the space.



Why don't you scroll down a bit and get back to me after you have read and considered a few things that credible people have researched for decades. Honestly, who are you? What are your credentials???


Could you please point them out in your source, because the ones they have on there have serious crdebility problems.

And with all that research not one of them have actually tested a chemtrail after it was sprayed and still newly developed.

As for who I am...why do you need to know?

My credentials are as followed...

Normal joe with a normal job

I use common sense when it comes to evidence posted as proof.

I don't fall for gullible people telling me something I know doesn't exist.

And lastly...I am a chemtrail debunker that denies ignorance...anything else you want to know?




posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ReadyAREyou
a reply to: 2giveup

All I know is that topic of Chemtrails is so attacked by paid online agents that it can only mean this topic is very important to the government, even more than 9/11


So you are claiming that those of us who try to educate people about clouds, contrails and weather are paid agents?

Some are paid to post here and they always sing the same tune.


If you don't have any actual evidence then accusing someone of being a paid shill on here is a breach of T&C's.

So then why do you continue to try to get people to breach the rules here?


did I mention "actual evidence" - oh yes, I did.......

And Did I mention either "back it up or shut up"....oh yes...I did.......

Ain't no-one forcing you to breach the rules - just me pointing out that you already have and you should make amends or shove off.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jubei42
a reply to: deadeyedick

The plot just keeps thickening with this, even a fart is a chemtrail.

And who cares what motivates people to post here. This is a discussion board, not a brainwashing or thought correction board. A party paying anyone to write anything here is the real fool. -Worst lobby ever!


I do understand your point but much can be achieved by groups of people that make it their job to convince others of something.


to under rated paid posters



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

it is not personal.

you may want to try to remake whatever point you were trying to make because it is above my understanding and very close to gibberish at this point.

FACT chemtrails are real and anyone that denies that is dumber than me.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalShadow
So you simply look at the first .jpg and make your decision from there?? REALLY?

Yes, really.

Because all you can get from a picture is what something looks like, and if it looks like a contrail and there is nothing in it that looks other than a contrail then that is all you need to conclude that it is a contrail.

If someone thinks it is something else then it is up to them t provide the evidence, and be prepared to back it up against criticism.


Why don't you scroll down a bit and get back to me after you have read and considered a few things that credible people have researched for decades. Honestly, who are you? What are your credentials??? a reply to: tsurfer2000h



There are no "credible people" who have researched "chemtrails" for "decades" - the myth has only been around for about 15-17 years.

and what "evidence" various people HAVE found showing chemtrails exist has, AFAIK, without exception, been found to be unsupported assertion, mis-interpretation or just outright lies.

feel free to provide some "evidence" that hasn't ben debunked yet.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   

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

it is not personal.

you may want to try to remake whatever point you were trying to make because it is above my understanding and very close to gibberish at this point.

FACT chemtrails are real and anyone that denies that is dumber than me.



FACT - there is not a single piece of irrefutable evidence supporting your so-called "fact" - not ever, in het whole 15-17 year history of this chemtrail myth has there been such a piece of evidence.

Not one.

ever.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Perhaps we may see more evidence when the debunking standards are raised to a level that does not simply seek to negate everything and anything that could in anyway undermine the goals of paid posters.

You know good and well that no evidence will ever exist that could shake the foundation of a system of lies that has been built around operations that seek to undermine humanity slowly.

for the sake of those of us who may not believe the same as you can you give us some type of example that you would consider evidence and could not be debunked by groups of people that have made it their job to debunk.

At this point anything could be debunked to a point to make anyone believe the debunking is legit.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
The topic of this thread is Chemtrails/Contrails.

Not paid disinfo/shills, or who might be.

There will be no more of it.

Do not respond to this post.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   

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

Perhaps we may see more evidence when the debunking standards are raised to a level that does not simply seek to negate everything and anything that could in anyway undermine the goals of paid posters.


Again - who is a paid poster?

Debunking standards are simple - identify bunk - which is short for "bunkum" - ie nonsense.

Eg when you look at a picture and say "that's a chemtrail" and I ask you how you know it is a chemtrail, and you say "because contrail cannot last that long" (or some other reason) I can point out that contrails do last that long and this has ben known for many decades, therefore your reason is bunk and your conclusion is false.


You know good and well that no evidence will ever exist that could shake the foundation of a system of lies that has been built around operations that seek to undermine humanity slowly.


I know well that if there was any credible evidence of chemtrails existing I'd be in the forefront of the demo's against hem.

I also know that het only lies I have seen about chetmrails come from believers....or...more accurately, people apparently trying to deliberately deceive people into believing chemtrails exist.

there is no need for lies to debunk chemtrails.


for the sake of those of us who may not believe the same as you can you give us some type of example that you would consider evidence and could not be debunked by groups of people that have made it their job to debunk.

At this point anything could be debunked to a point to make anyone believe the debunking is legit.



Good evidence would be anything that can be supported by objective sources - ie something that you can show that I can replicate and get the same results for, or that can be examined and found to be real.

Clear documentation or credible whistleblowing would be examples - this myth says that thousands of aircraft worldwide are daily engaged in making these chemtrails - and yet there is no evidence of any dispersal mechanisms on aircraft, no loadsheets showing anything being loaded for spraying, no pilots or mechanics coming forward (except for a handful anonymous ones who's "testimony" is, frankly, nonsense) who can be cross examined and their claims verified.

there are millions of people involved in commercial aviation, and hundreds of thousands of flights EVERY DAY - where is the evidence??

It is not the debunkers fault that chemtrail "evidence" is so easy to debunk - I is the fault of het people who put it forward without taking any care to critically examine it themselves!!



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul


Clear documentation or credible whistleblowing would be examples - this myth says that thousands of aircraft worldwide are daily engaged in making these chemtrails - and yet there is no evidence of any dispersal mechanisms on aircraft, no loadsheets showing anything being loaded for spraying, no pilots or mechanics coming forward (except for a handful anonymous ones who's "testimony" is, frankly, nonsense) who can be cross examined and their claims verified

dispersal mechanism would be exhaust systems

no load sheets would be made for something undercover

the fact that the ones to come forward so far have been deemed nonsense by debunkers

I hold the belief that such a goal of putting forrign substances into the air using planes could be done in a manner that leaves no traces and frankly any methoed that would leave tracks would dumb and not last long.

we have many chemist and such that could easily use additives that are inert until raised to extreme heat. let us be real and agree that the fuel going into an engine is not the same after it is burnt and many chemicals can be altered in this manner to form other compounds that could be then used to further certain goals

honestly if people came forward and made claims of things they seen on the job do you think anyone would believe them or not. Just look to the ufo events where many credible people come forward just to be debunked by others.

I will stand firmly behind the claim that the topic is so well defamed at this point there is no amount of evidence you or others would accept because many are paid not to and others are carring the weight for sinister plans.

We do know for a fact that such chemtrails coming from planes have been deployed in the past by the government with bad intentions. Thousands of lives have been taken by such actions



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 07:05 PM
link   

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


Clear documentation or credible whistleblowing would be examples - this myth says that thousands of aircraft worldwide are daily engaged in making these chemtrails - and yet there is no evidence of any dispersal mechanisms on aircraft, no loadsheets showing anything being loaded for spraying, no pilots or mechanics coming forward (except for a handful anonymous ones who's "testimony" is, frankly, nonsense) who can be cross examined and their claims verified

dispersal mechanism would be exhaust systems


So you are hypothesizing?


no load sheets would be made for something undercover


Another hypothetical statement, and again your lack of actual aviation knowledge shows - loading any material on board without completing appropriate weight and balance documents would be illegal and dangerous - whistle-blowing would be simple and easy to do, and supported by the vast majority of people in the industry.



the fact that the ones to come forward so far have been deemed nonsense by debunkers


Are you seriously saying that debunking something is evidence that it must be true??
It is not that they have been "deemed nonsense" - it is that rational analysis has shown them to be nonsense.



I hold the belief that such a goal of putting forrign substances into the air using planes could be done in a manner that leaves no traces and frankly any methoed that would leave tracks would dumb and not last long.


Well you are entitled to hold that belief......but if whatever it is leaves no traces then how can it accomplish anything?

And since it leaves no traces you must accept that there is no evidence, and therefore you are not entitled to say it isd a "fact"........and that if you DO choose to put it forward as a fact you are going to have the shortcomings in your argument pointed out - ie you are going to be debunked!


we have many chemist and such that could easily use additives that are inert until raised to extreme heat. let us be real and agree that the fuel going into an engine is not the same after it is burnt and many chemicals can be altered in this manner to form other compounds that could be then used to further certain goals


the fuel going into an engine has a defined chemical makeup that is a worldwide standard - Def Std 91-91 - in every country I know of using nythign else is illegal, as it is a requirement to use only approved materials on aircraft - including fuel.

You can buy jet fuel from airports at various palces - feel free to do so and test some.....


honestly if people came forward and made claims of things they seen on the job do you think anyone would believe them or not.


Suer - if hteir claims weer credible 0- it happens all the time in all sorts of fields.


Just look to the ufo events where many credible people come forward just to be debunked by others.


So what - if any claim has bunk then why shouldn't it be debunked??


I will stand firmly behind the claim that the topic is so well defamed at this point there is no amount of evidence you or others would accept because many are paid not to and others are carring the weight for sinister plans.


bollocks.


We do know for a fact that such chemtrails coming from planes have been deployed in the past by the government with bad intentions. Thousands of lives have been taken by such actions


Such as, perhaps, Agent Orange in Vietnam?? sure......but it did leave residue, it didn't come from engines, it wasn't done at high altitude.....it is no evidence whatsoever of anything happening today.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Test a trail. Make it well documented and videoed. Use a scientific chain of evidence. Just like the information we present that folks like you ignore.

If you do that, and find that the trail has barium, and or strontium, and or aluminum, then we, the debunkers would have no choice but to either explain it, or accept it. There is no third option.

Bring it, and we can sort it out like adults.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul





So you are hypothesizing

If you want to call it that



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: deadeyedick

Test a trail. Make it well documented and videoed. Use a scientific chain of evidence. Just like the information we present that folks like you ignore.

If you do that, and find that the trail has barium, and or strontium, and or aluminum, then we, the debunkers would have no choice but to either explain it, or accept it. There is no third option.

Bring it, and we can sort it out like adults.


It is true I do like to ignore such

I feel that onsite testing of every planes fuel supply by independent labs would serve us better because even if I could formulate a compound that when burnt turns to something you would accept harmful to the environment beyond normal spectrum of fuels then we would still be left with the question of if it is in the fuel. Besides that we both already know that such compounds exist



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   

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





So you are hypothesizing

If you want to call it that


You said you have no evidence, and you said various things "would be" the case ......what would you call it?



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I call it spit ballin



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Yeah - hypothesizing.....what's your problem??


ETA: Both mean putting an idea out for further discussion


edit on 17-9-2015 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   

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

Yeah - hypothesizing.....what's your problem?? :p


which one
the first comment was actually made in a light hearted manner that was showing that I was not even up to the level of hypothesizing and that my comments were even falling short of that level but you read it and put forth your own meaning of my comment

what is your problem?



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
I just reside in the thought that people are pouring crap into the fuel before takeoff and until that is proven to not be the case the conspiracy remains. sorry that I can not just take your word for it


Now when wwe record a plane leaving these trails in the air then we intercept the plane at landing and run many test on it only then can we put this to bed for those of us with more simpleminds



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
I feel that onsite testing of every planes fuel supply by independent labs would serve us better


So why haven't you arranged for that to be done?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join