Chemtrails over the South West of the UK

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I completely agree it is harder to prove negatives. Still does'nt give people the right to declare their "beliefs" as facts. The average person does'nt join these kind of debates and declare themselves "of an opinion" they speak as though they are pronouncing hard facts. Chemtrails are contrails END OFF... Says who?

The only fact here is that no one can prove anything.

originally posted by: RevolutionAnon
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I completely agree it is harder to prove negatives. Still does'nt give people the right to declare their "beliefs" as facts. The average person does'nt join these kind of debates and declare themselves "of an opinion" they speak as though they are pronouncing hard facts. Chemtrails are contrails END OFF... Says who?

The only fact here is that no one can prove anything.

The problem is that the reasons given for suspecting chemtrails are real are demonstrably false. And that isn't just an opinion

a reply to: mrthumpy

But that still does not prove them false.

Atheists for example puzzle me. When religious people push their beliefs on me i understand why, I don't appreciate it but i understand as it is considered by them a religious responsibility. When atheists push their non-religious views on me I am genuinely confused. They have no structured system such as the bible encouraging them to share and enlighten. So why do they feel the need to try to entice me to their way of thinking? I personally just see it as a form of intellectual arrogance as apposed to an attempt at salvation.

Anyway i have a degree to continue studying for as fun as these debates are.

originally posted by: RevolutionAnon
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

...Chemtrails are contrails END OFF... Says who?

I think a better way to view or present it is to say, "They are all contrails (which are well understood and have ample scientific evidence) until such time as there is actual scientific studies, physical sampling, and repeatable results to confirm the existence of what has been termed a 'Chemtrail'."

To this day that does not exist. And (as in any case) the burden of proof is upon the claimant to prove existence beyond individual visual interpretation. It is not up to anyone to prove non-existence (which is impossible).

a reply to: TerryDon79

So you are saying when they sprayed agent orange in Vietnam that was not a form of chemtrail? Also in the 50's when they released cadmium in St. Louis on the civilians to simulate nuclear fallout? Granted the latter was not sprayed from an aircraft, but does allude to the point that we don't have a say in what THEY do.
I forget if it is silver nitrate or silver iodide that they use for seeding clouds but that was being done in the seventies...Now I am not an accredited scientist but would that not be a chemtraill? If you are putting silver iodide or solid carbon dioxide(dry-ice) in the air mixed with a contrail, one might say that it is of a chemical nature. If the exhaust contains hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen, one might say it has a chemical make up.
Now this site is meant to deny ignorance, not bath in it.

Cheers, Nuts

originally posted by: IronNuts
a reply to: TerryDon79

So you are saying when they sprayed agent orange in Vietnam that was not a form of chemtrail? Also in the 50's when they released cadmium in St. Louis on the civilians to simulate nuclear fallout? Granted the latter was not sprayed from an aircraft, but does allude to the point that we don't have a say in what THEY do.

Yes, I am saying that those are not chemtrails. They're also well documented and not hidden

I forget if it is silver nitrate or silver iodide that they use for seeding clouds but that was being done in the seventies...Now I am not an accredited scientist but would that not be a chemtraill? If you are putting silver iodide or solid carbon dioxide(dry-ice) in the air mixed with a contrail, one might say that it is of a chemical nature. If the exhaust contains hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen, one might say it has a chemical make up.
Now this site is meant to deny ignorance, not bath in it.

Cheers, Nuts

Cloud seeding is also not chemtrails and they do not come from airplane exhausts. Cloud seeding is also very well documented. You also need existing clouds to seed, hence the name.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Chem trails, to my understanding, are created by some sort of stealth flight vehicle which drops chemicals as it flys along. I don't think people are actually interchanging Contrails for Chemtrails, they are just of the belief that those contrails left behind were from SFV's spreading chemicals of some kind.

So why people use Contrails as a way to disprove chemtrail theorists is lost on me as most of those theorists i have spoke to don't regard the Trails left behind as a byproduct of the chemicals dropped.

I think it is more the location and patterns of the Contrails that these theorists find confusing, not the genetic make up of them.

a reply to: RevolutionAnon

Because the most common argument for chemtrails is that contrails can't persist, so if you see a contrail that lasts longer than a few seconds it has to be a chemtrail.

People are constantly identifying contrails as chemtrails, with nothing other than "it doesn't look right" or "I don't remember this from when I was young" and "contrails can't spread out into cloud cover".

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well length of time is dependent on atmospheric conditions which can vary for all kinds of reasons. So that is not a form of proof pointing towards the existence of chemtrails. I still stick by saying you can neither identify with it as true or false.

Fact is only relatable to Fact. Show the fact or declare your point of view as what it is, an opinion.

originally posted by: RevolutionAnon
a reply to: Krakatoa

Chem trails, to my understanding, are created by some sort of stealth flight vehicle which drops chemicals as it flys along. I don't think people are actually interchanging Contrails for Chemtrails, they are just of the belief that those contrails left behind were from SFV's spreading chemicals of some kind.

So why people use Contrails as a way to disprove chemtrail theorists is lost on me as most of those theorists i have spoke to don't regard the Trails left behind as a byproduct of the chemicals dropped.

I think it is more the location and patterns of the Contrails that these theorists find confusing, not the genetic make up of them.

I emphasized a part of your response above. And I ask you"

• Do you have proof of these SFV's?
  
• Do you have proof of the chemicals being spread?
  
• Do you have proof that a chemical spread at 30,000ft will make it to the ground intact, and at a concentration that could affect a person's health?
  
• Can you repeatedly run these tests, or have an independent 3rd party run them, and receive the same results?
  

Until these questions can be answered, then what you see must be a contrail....until PROVEN otherwise.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Ok, wait, why are you saying if it is documented then it isn't a chemtrail? Am I missing that a chemtrail must be some hidden death cloud above us that only lunatics believe in? Is this where this is going?

Cloud seeding is also not chemtrails and they do not come from airplane exhausts.

I was just saying at 30,000 feet if the sprayers were going it would mix with the contrail and you and I would say contrail.
If a jet is flying and in it's trail is a wake of chemicals, I, for one, would call that a chemtrail. Call me ignorant I don't care, but in my little mind that is 2+2=4.

Cheers, Nuts

a reply to: RevolutionAnon

You are correct in that nobody can say with authority that chemtrails don't exist. that would be proving a negative and as anyone with a brain knows, you just can't do that. What we do know is that contrails are real. They form from airplanes when conditions are right. They can last just as long as the conditions allow for. Knowing all that, what we, the debunkers say, is that you cannot look at something that looks just like a contrail and say it's anything other than a contrail, base on sight alone. it just doesn't work that way. So when someone sees white lines in the sky and says "them are chemtrails". They are wrong.

They are trails. If you want to find out what's in them, you have to get a sample. If you aren't able to do that, you can trust the 100 years of atmospheric science that has explained them, or worry about "them" spraying bad juice on you. Common sense would say, they are likely contrails. The conspiracy doesn't hold up to scrutiny at all.

But then, people believe the Earth is flat becasue they can't go to the South Pole to verify there isn't an edge. So it's hard to convince some using common sense.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Dear God!, If you are there, strike me down.

If you are going to leap into a debate that is spread over two pages please do your research beforehand. I have stated several times i do not believe in chemtrails. I believe in the reasoning of other conspiracies just not this one.

I am debating the Median of this subject not the Min/Max. I was originally clashing with someone who was declaring his own "thoughts and opinions" as unquestionable facts that chemtrails are fiction despite the obvious logic of "If you cannot prove something either way, then it both exists and is non-existent.

a reply to: IronNuts

If exhaust fumes are now included as "chemical trails" then, using that definition, I am more concerned about the MASSIVE chem trails being spewed out on the roads and highways of our world.

See, moving the goal posts to protect a belief is more problematic.

a reply to: IronNuts

cloud seeding is real. Crop dusting is real. Cow farts are real. All three examples are of a chemical being released into the air. If you call all three chemtrails, that is your right, but it doesn't make the white lines formed behind airplanes at 30,000 anything other than contrails made of ice particles.

originally posted by: RevolutionAnon
a reply to: mrthumpy

But that still does not prove them false.
.

"Those are not contrails because contrails do not persist and spread and we never saw trails like this when I was young."

"Here's a century of documented evidence from multiple sources that proves you wrong"

So no reason to even begin to suspect the existence of chemtrails in the first place.

Seems pretty cut and dried to me

a reply to: RevolutionAnon

Confused by atheists. Have no structure? How can you turn contrails into a religious debate?????. You feel obligated to inform us that you are studying for a degree to what, help validate your intelligence or to give your words more substance.
I have been following chemtrails for a while and have to honestly admit I was duped, like many other subjects. Nothing on ATS about chemtrails has been true, in all incidences has been debunked, only refuted by those not willing to let go.

If you constitute cloud seeding as chemtrails then they exist. If you don't then they don't exist.

And proving something negative is alot more difficult. Lmao. Priceless sir. Thankyou for that one

a reply to: NewzNose

it would be cool if you would state your thoughts on what makes a contrail a chemtrail AND stick around to discuss it, rather than the usual drive by posting.

a reply to: IronNuts
So napalm is a chemtrails? This is getting good now.

originally posted by: IronNuts
a reply to: TerryDon79

Ok, wait, why are you saying if it is documented then it isn't a chemtrail? Am I missing that a chemtrail must be some hidden death cloud above us that only lunatics believe in? Is this where this is going?

Cloud seeding is also not chemtrails and they do not come from airplane exhausts.

Not at all. I'm saying that those instances were not chemtrails.

I was just saying at 30,000 feet if the sprayers were going it would mix with the contrail and you and I would say contrail.
If a jet is flying and in it's trail is a wake of chemicals, I, for one, would call that a chemtrail. Call me ignorant I don't care, but in my little mind that is 2+2=4.

Cheers, Nuts

That would be like saying I farted in a planes toilet, it escaped the plane and mixed with the contrail therefore, chemtrails.