Real Contrail Science, why they persist and why they spread out and why they are not chemtrails

It has become far too obvious; the "Debunkers" on this thread are clearly Feigning ignorance of the vast amounts of relevant literature and research that is available.

Notice how their ad hoc reactionary debunking never contains any of the qualities one might expect from a properly formed rebuttal - no counterpoints, no citations, and never, will you ever find a point by point refutation by any of these 'debunkers' - for them, blatant mischaracterization, ad hominem attacks, and defamatory misquoting will often suffice to complete their primary objective.

Their feigned terminological inexactitude, ignorance and lack of capability to exert any intellectual rigour - combined with their shear force of numbers and unnecessary quantity of unsupported posts is often enough to overwhelm and bury even the most pertinent data and most important contributions relevant to the topic.

I believe this to be their primary objective.

Originally posted by TruthTellist
the vast amounts of relevant literature and research that is available.

Yeah well....none of it supports the notion that the fluffy white contrails that are seen behind high altitude aircraft, that often hang around for significant lengths of time, and are a result of several variables.....have anything to do with--and here's a clue Sherlock--the relatively well-known practices of weather modification, radar/radio research, etc.....

Now...would you like to continue trashing people's character? Or would you like to provide some direct evidence (samples from within an "alleged" chemtrail, maybe?) that any persistent contrail is a "chemtrail."

I fear that if your rhetoric gets any more frothy....you may impede your ability to continue using ATS...what with the spittle that I imagine spraying onto your computer monitor. Keep some Windex(tm) close by.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by MrPenny]

reply to post by MrPenny


Exactly. Until someone takes a jet, flies through an alleged chemtrail, retrieves a few direct samples of said trail, sends the samples for analysis, and gets consistent readings of abnormal chemicals, chemtrails will only be a hypothesis, not even a theory.

There is no evidence. No evidence at all, that this is happening. It's possible, but highly ridiculous (there are much better ways of achieving everything chemtrailers claim the trails do). We need the smoking gun. It's not been found.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by dave420
Those who believe in the absence of evidence will not be dissuaded by evidence: they have elevated their beliefs above the rational. It is now a religion.

So, you continue to ridicule those who hold a position different from yourself while refusing to read or even acknowledge documented proof and logic that supports opposition. Tsk, tsk, tsk. It just goes to show that with all the supplied evidence and the actual admission of fact by those who have in the past and continue with the ongoing practice today (chemical dispersal), that you and yours, still cling to your beliefs and denial. How ironic you make the above statement as it is more of a reflection of you than an accusation at others.

I am curious though, do you only read what supports your position, or do you read it all but simply refuse to acknowledge the opposition, any opposition? My guess is that you refuse to read it all, otherwise you would need to redact your statements. This behavior is common among disinformation agents, misinformed parrots, misguided loyalists, fuel techs who don’t wear a respirator for prolonged periods of time, various practicing 420s and the occasional regular guy/gal who simply hasn’t had the time to read over all the evidence but in the mean time, is afraid of being ridiculed by the aforementioned.

But I could be wrong, perhaps you simply don’t understand what it is you are reading. If that is the case, please accept my sincere apology.

Originally posted by TruthTellist

It has become far too obvious; the "Debunkers" on this thread are clearly Feigning ignorance of the vast amounts of relevant literature and research that is available.

Notice how their ad hoc reactionary debunking never contains any of the qualities one might expect from a properly formed rebuttal - no counterpoints, no citations, and never, will you ever find a point by point refutation by any of these 'debunkers' - for them, blatant mischaracterization, ad hominem attacks, and defamatory misquoting will often suffice to complete their primary objective.

Their feigned terminological inexactitude, ignorance and lack of capability to exert any intellectual rigour - combined with their shear force of numbers and unnecessary quantity of unsupported posts is often enough to overwhelm and bury even the most pertinent data and most important contributions relevant to the topic.

I believe this to be their primary objective.

Yes, you can clearly see this by Dave420's post on this page, which is just another in a long line of posts saying the same thing. Ie, nothing.

You can tell at least some of these people have an agenda, with a couple of them trying to assume the position of "authority figures". Too bad this is the XXIst century and people don't fall for Lords of Dogma figures so easily, huh?

And you can bet that any real evidence presented to them would quickly be sanitized, in much the same UFO sightings are and cutting edge energy tech, such as water as fuel, is. They are really small tentacles of a really big octopus.

reply to post by TruthTellist


Tellist,
Before you get your skivvies in a bigger knot about this, try focusing on the thread at hand. Shipboard sprayings, cropdusting, coal power plants and the like are not what this thread is about. Grind that axe in another thread. If you claim a theory, the burden of proof is on you. Here's what you need to do: from the immense library that you have amassed, select references that address chemtrails, specifically. The papers should not be rants or full of heresay. They should describe actual events, not white papers, proposed work, or imaginary happenings. They should contain some evidence for willful dispersion of materials designed to somehow effect human life. The materials should be described and their desired effects stated. The work should be verifiable, i.e., if it's BaSO4 raining down on people, there should be a certified laboratory that did the analysis willing to say how they collected the sample and what it contained. I realize that this might be difficult, but that is what you will need to do to prove that there is something in contrails. Do not be sidetracked by patents for aerosol dispersers, they prove nothing about contrails. Likewise, stuff coming down from the sky does not mean it came from contrails.
When you have an theory of what is in the contrails, you will then know how to analyze it. Capturing a sample will be difficult because you would have to sample from the contrail, itself. If you have no idea, you'd have to get a big enough sample to do a screening and you'd need an air sample from the space surrounding the contrail so you could subtract background.
When the analysis is done, you would then write a technical paper, subject to peer review, for publication in a scientific journal.
Bottom line--focus on contrails, call out referenced specifics, make your case.

Originally posted by TruthTellist

It has become far too obvious; the "Debunkers" on this thread are clearly Feigning ignorance of the vast amounts of relevant literature and research that is available.

Notice how their ad hoc reactionary debunking never contains any of the qualities one might expect from a properly formed rebuttal - no counterpoints, no citations, and never, will you ever find a point by point refutation by any of these 'debunkers' - for them, blatant mischaracterization, ad hominem attacks, and defamatory misquoting will often suffice to complete their primary objective.

I take that means "No, I won't answer your questions Essan. And it's up to you to prove my alternative theory based on a imaginary secret defence system for which I have no evidence whatsoever is wrong, not for me to offer any evidence at all that it is correct".

However, for your education:

www.af.mil...

That contains the basics of the longstanding, much studied, scientific explanation for the phenomena that some call chemtrails.

Can you, or anyone, prove it is wrong?


btw, for an idea of the vast amount of relevant literature and research that is available, please look here Should be enough to keep you going a good few months

[edit on 21-11-2008 by Essan]

Originally posted by Essan
www.af.mil...

That contains the basics of the longstanding, much studied, scientific explanation for the phenomena that some call chemtrails.

That's hilarious.....that .pdf contains the very same photos, in the same size and configuration, that zorgon used earlier--without attribution, I might add--in an attempt to bolster his position. Even more hilarious, the text explains the heavy exhaust depicted in the images.


Ha ha ha.........

reply to post by eaganthorn


I'm not ridiculing anyone, however I am ridiculing ideas. And I'm not doing so because they are different to mine, but because they are based on masses of illogical assumptions devoid of any supporting evidence.

I read anything. I don't censor what I read. I've yet to read anything by any chemtrailer that has any substance to it. That's my entire point. You are labouring under the false idea that the two positions are equal - they are far from it. I've yet to see a single shred of evidence from chemtrailers that chemtrails are real.

I'm not a misinfo/disinfo agent. I'm merely being logical. You can call me that if it makes it easier for you to ignore logic - whatever gets you through the night.

reply to post by Zepherian


There is no evidence for chemtrails. I've posted, many times, how evidence needs to be gathered.

I'm still waiting for the same evidence that convinced the believers to believe, as so far I've not seen ANY. And there must be evidence, otherwise all the believers are not being rational.

Edit: This thread is in the "Science & Technology" forum, so let's actually see the science behind how chemtrails are demonstrated to exist, and why the contrails in the sky are actually chemtrails. If not, we can move this thread to a religious forum, where it would belong.


[edit on 21/11/08 by dave420]

Originally posted by dave420
I read anything. I don't censor what I read. I've yet to read anything by any chemtrailer that has any substance to it. That's my entire point. You are labouring under the false idea that the two positions are equal - they are far from it. I've yet to see a single shred of evidence from chemtrailers that chemtrails are real.

If you do as you say, then you have read what I have already suggested, and if you have read what I have suggested then your above statement is a lie. It is not subjective as an opinion, it is a lie. Meaning, you are exposed as a liar and a fraud.

I have previously outlined a definition of a Chemtrail that is accurate and factual and I have established the feasibility of a conspiracy. These things cannot be denied, are above refute, transcend any doubt, and are easily understood even by a child.

To suggest that my position is not valid or in someway untrue would indicate that you do not fully understand or are being deceptive as the previously outlined facts speak for themselves. You should also take the time to note that my position does not conflict with some of the weather anomaly explanations. In contrast, your position is by design, to eliminate the entire chemtrail theory and the various aspects of that theory.

Which in reality means you are saying that you know as a fact, that no where on this planet is a trail in the air left behind by a plan or a jet that contains anything more than water vapor and carbon monoxide. What you are saying is that you know as a fact, that no one is dispersing chemicals in the air by a plane or jet, anywhere on this planet that leaves a visible trail.

Originally posted by pteridineIf you claim a theory, the burden of proof is on you. Here's what you need to do: from the immense library that you have amassed, select references that address chemtrails, specifically.

Only one problem with your logic here... The topic of the thread and the OP post is the one making the claim that they are all contrails, not chemtrails... therefore the burden of proof falls to the contrail crowd to proof that they are ALL contrails



PS I LIKE the smileys

You debunkers are so intent on your mission you forget how to have fun... you would rather resort to name calling as is obvious by the warnings your side has already collected

Now Mr Penny has already told me once upon a time that he never reads any of my links... I am willing to bet the majority of debunkers also exhibit this 'selective reading' trait.









[edit on 21-11-2008 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon
therefore the burden of proof falls to the contrail crowd to proof that they are ALL contrails

That is, admittedly, an immense burden of proof. Actually, it's an impossible burden of proof....as I'm sure you well know, you're not a fool.

Flip that thought around....all it takes is one contrail, proven to have some component that absolutely, positively, cannot or should not, be in a normal jet contrail.

That's all it takes.....one. One proven "chemtrail", from an analysis of the contents of what looks like an innocent contrail.

reply to post by MrPenny


Exactly - there is a very well know, factually sound, demonstrable explanation for contrails, and quite the opposite for chemtrails. The burden of proof lies 100% with chemtrail proponents - they are the ones claiming something previously-unknown and out of the ordinary.

Originally posted by zorgon
Now Mr Penny has already told me once upon a time that he never reads any of my links...

You need to "back the truck" up and reconsider that statement. Or, refresh my memory with an actual quote.

I do clearly recall telling you that the links you provide generally are so fanciful, and weakly linked to your premise that it is clear you do little more than "cherry pick" a couple of lines or the title from the source.

I've ripped apart enough of your "links" in the past that it is clear....I have a quite good grasp of the "quality" of your links. You've made the above statement enough times that it illuminates one of your strategies.....cherry pick the titles and quotes, hoping no one actually does read them....and claim you've got the "smoking gun."

You once used GirlsLife.com as a serious source. Heh.....

reply to post by dave420


You need evidence if you're making a scientific assertation in an academic setting. I am however warning you of what is happening. I don't need evidence for what I know is real, and can warn people based on my own authority.

Whether you believe or not is your choice, but there is no objective yardstick for this to be judged by. Besides, this sort of thing is happening worldwide all the time, you don't need evidence, you need to get off your keyboard and go outside to witness it. Then your testimony will be part of a bigger body of evidence, which contrary to your claims is out there and plentifull, just being supressed by liars and the people fooled by the liars.

What you're doing, willingly or not, is just a psyop, an attempt to make something which is a done deal seem less objective and real, in the hopes those still not awake to what happens in this world, of which chemtrail is but a chapter, stay ignorant.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by MrPenny

 

Exactly - there is a very well know, factually sound, demonstrable explanation for contrails, and quite the opposite for chemtrails. The burden of proof lies 100% with chemtrail proponents - they are the ones claiming something previously-unknown and out of the ordinary.

There have been plenty of links to objective instances on these threads. The German government, one of the G7 nations has admitted to it. What do you think Agent Orange was? The only thing out of the ordinary about atmospheric spraying of toxins and/or weather manipulation this time is the secrecy and the scale.

Stop lieing. Stop derailing the thread. Stop saying up is down and down is up. The people aren't that dumb. They phoned in massively against the bailout for exp, they know government is a bunch of crooks. The ship has sailed. You can't save authorities ass on this one. It's only a matter of time.

reply to post by Zepherian


I'm asking for evidence that the contrails in the sky are actually chemtrails, not that people have in the past deployed chemicals from planes at completely different altitudes and speeds for other reasons.

People using planes for cropdusting or for dropping defoliant are not evidence that the contrails in the sky are chemtrails. Something being possible doesn't mean it's actually happening.

I'm not lying. I'm asking for the report of analysis of a sample taken directly from a contrail which turned out to contain substances not expected to be found in such a position. Until that happens, all the conjecture in the world won't demonstrate to a rational person that this is happening.

I'm not trying to save anyone's ass. I'm asking you to demonstrate to me that something is happening, not that something could happen, but that it is happening. So far you have not. And here's some advice for you, should you want to take it: I'd advise against screaming "disinfo agent!!!" every time someone calls you out on your rampant irrationality, as it's not helping your argument one iota. If you can refute my position, then surely your argument has little merit, as if you are right and I am wrong, it should be a piece of cake to do so.

And here we are, 19 pages later, still waiting for actual evidence that contrails, even some contrails, in the skies above us, are chemtrails. People discussing it is not evidence it is happening. The technology existing is not evidence it is being used. Surely you have a report showing strange chemicals in actual contrails, otherwise your entire position is not based in reality, but unsubstantiated gut feelings.

You are derailing the thread by making fantastic claims and having exactly 0 evidence to back them up. As Carl Sagan said - "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and you don't even have ordinary evidence - just guesswork, no direct samples of contrails, and a seemingly lacking understanding of meteorological phenomena.

I'm here trying to deny ignorance - help a brother out, would you?

Originally posted by Zepherian

There have been plenty of links to objective instances on these threads. The German government, one of the G7 nations has admitted to it. What do you think Agent Orange was? The only thing out of the ordinary about atmospheric spraying of toxins and/or weather manipulation this time is the secrecy and the scale.

What we do know is that neither of these things are what people call contrails.

Stop lieing. Stop derailing the thread.

Your are the one derailing the thread. the point of the thread is to show that what people mistakenly thing of as chemtrails are not chemtrails.

Whether real chemtrail spraying takes place is another matter - but you should ask who is fooling who.

The people aren't that dumb.

I think they are.

Maybe they should read some of these papers?

But maybe the truth is too hard to face?

Do you really believe all those papers are disinformation?

[edit on 21-11-2008 by Essan]

Oz,

Contrails as you say spread but you must understand that one can be used to cover the other meaning chemtrails are sprayed and weather people will say they are contrails because they all spread the same way somewhat. Hiding one with the other.

You can observe two planes next to each other one sprays one doesn't as I see it if one is leaving a contrail so should the other. Planes spraying fly in patterns to close to one another.

I'm sorry I totally DISagree with you and I do not mean this in an ingorant way.

Contrails are Contrails and Chemtrails are Chemtrails to totally different actions.