Originally posted by Unlimitedpossibilities
So the elitists do everything else to exploit the masses and make them die quicker, except spray us with chemicals. Hmmmmm....
My point is, we can say that contrail advocates can be one of three things:
1. Correct about them being contrails.
2. Disinformation agents.
3. Incorrect about them being contrails.
So why do we believe that chemtrails exist? Well if there are only three possibilities, then we chemtrail advocates have a 66.67% chance of being
correct. I like those odds, don't you?
That's illogical reasoning on every level.
On the same basis, is you tell me that the old lady who lives 3 doors down from me is not the tooth fairy either
1. You are correct
2. You are a disinformation agent
3. You are incorrect
And on the basis of probability (per your calculation) she probably is the tooth fairy ....
But in any case, if you are a disinformation agent then you are still either right or wrong and thus it's 50/50 as to whether or not she really is
the tooth fairy.
Back to chemtrails. There is thus a 50/50 chance that those who have extensively studied the phenomena referred to as chemtrails for many decades,
continue to study it and in particular study it's effect on climate and ways to prevent it occurring are either right or wrong.
I think they are right. If you think they are wrong, please explain how and why they are wrong.
You might also like to try and answer the question no chemtrailer darers answer: why are chemtrails visible and why do they look and behave identical
to contrails?
Yes, there is some rather circumstantial evidence pointing towards the possibility that chemicals of some sort may be sprayed for varies purposes into
the atmosphere. But there is
no evidence whatsoever that what people call chemtrails are chemtrails Not even Truthtellist can explain why
his imaginary protective shield looks and acts like contrails and only appears when contrails are expected (by well known atmospheric processes) to
appear. Nor does he explain why NATO are spraying their shield over Australia and the Far East. Or, indeed, why they started doing it in WWII.
As for anti radar chaff - there is an issue here: what happens to it after deployment? Is there an environmental or health issue? I don't know.
It's unrelated to chemtrails. And at least - as the German video demonstrates - we know when such chaff is deployed to any great extent because,
whilst it cannot be seen from the ground, it shows up on radar.
One of the problems with chemtrailers is that each and every one of them has a different idea of what they are, who deploys them, how and why. And
no-one has ever explained why they are not only visible from the ground (which always seems highly improbable) but also behave exactly like normal
contrails to the extent that they totally fool all the worlds leading experts studying the phenomena and, indeed, the military who are also studying
the phenomena with a view of finding better ways to prevent it occurring. Of course, I know some of you will then turn around and claim that
chemtrails are something which cannot be seen from the ground (like chaff or cloud seeding or spraying sulphur particles to prevent GW etc) .... but
then, doesn't that rather mean that all this chemtrails that we say are contrails are contrails after all?
If you truly believe that extensive chemical spraying is occuring, ask yourself who has been misleading you into thinking contrails are evidence of
it, and what they may have been getting up to whilst your attention has been diverted.
Someone's been fooled. And my money is that it's not the scientists studying the phenomena
if chemtrails DON"T exists then why WOULD they be mentioned by NAME in the initial draft of HR 2977??
