I'm just trying to get to the heart of the matter. Is that not why we come here to discuss? I really have been trying to open my mind by never
closing it. I might not be a scientist evalutuating in brutal detail that which is before me. I might not be pilot or in the navy or someone in the
know, in all areas of activities that encourage our every day nudge in life, but I'm one (as many) that want to know the truth, but I am getting
either fed disinfo, small truths, or just closed mindlessness.
pacman, at the risk of blowing my horn again, I'd like you to look at the link I posted above for Jake. The original article (which I wrote) is
about why I consider the "chemtrail" thing a hoax.
If it means anything, you can see that my background gives me some familiarity with aviation and meteorology; so even though I'm not an atmospheric
physicist, I'm not someone without any education or training in the field, either.
Now one very common response I get from people who want to believe in "chem-trails" is, "Well, you can't prove that chem-trails don't
exist, can you?"
And of course I can't. It's almost impossible to 'prove' that something doesn't
exist, just like you can't 'prove' that I'm not
really the Long-Lost King of France, or that the mushrooms in my back yard aren't planted there by The Little Fairies of the Moonlight. You could
show me all kinds of reasons why you think I'm not
the L-LKOF or that the mushrooms weren't
placed there by the LFOTM, but you can't
All I can do is to try to show that the concepts of "chem-trails" simply don't make any sense. I do this by using a concept called Occam's
which is fancy talk for the idea that the simplest reason for a phenomenon is the one that's probably right. Here's an example:
You're out walking in the woods one winter day and you see these indentations that look like the bottom of boots, about two feet apart, leading in a
more-or-less straight line through the snow. You come up with three hypotheses to explain it.
, there was a meteor shower last night, and meteorites of solid carbon dioxide, all shaped like bootprints, landed in the snow in a line
like you see there.
, there was a guy in a stealth helicopter last night with a pair of boots on really long poles who stamped the boots in the snow in a
line like you see there.
, someone wearing a pair of boots was walking through the snow last night, and he was going that-a-way.
I think most people would accept the third hypothesis without much thought, but can you 'prove'
that hypothesis 1 or 2 isn't
right one? Well, no, you can't.
It's the same way to figure out about "chem-trails". You could
postulate that persistent contrails are all caused buy a Huge Secret Plot,
but that would mean you'd have to believe a whole bunch of things, any one of which, if it didn't happen, would blow the whole hypothesis out of the
On the other hand, the explanation that persistent contrails are simply normal aircraft exhaust contrails which have flashed into ice crystals and the
temperature and humidity are such that they don't turn back into water vapor, is simpler, and has been shown to happen all over the world, in both
the sky and every laboratory you can think of.
I can't discard thousands, maybe millions, of witnesses with voices echoing throughout the years, that there are things that are not what they
True. But there are things out there which really are
what they seem, too.
If you are looking beyond the present day mirror(authority) set before us to see the horror of these falsehoods.
In this case, the 'mirror' is basic science and common sense.
Why is awareness of these things even there still lingering?
Because that's the way people are. many people still believe today that a person with one color skin is automatically smarter than a person with a
different color skin, or that it's okay for me to kill you to show I love God more than you do, or that something bad will happen to you if you walk
under a ladder or spill the salt, or a bunch of things which, when you really look at them, don't make a lick of sense.
If you really want this to go away, referring to a past thread that honestly does not put to rest the possiblity of weather/EM/QM
You will never
get something like that from a scientist. No scientist will say that something is "absolutely impossible and we have proof
that it simply can't happen". Instead, all he can say is that "the preponderance of evidence supports this
hypothesis over that
And it's up to you to look at the evidence and Occam's Razor and make up your own mind.
[edit on 31-10-2005 by Off_The_Street]