posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:24 PM
I've been thinking about this thread, and this topic, and wondering why it is the way it is ...
Oz, you and your "side" have one major problem - it's nearly impossible to prove a negative. It only takes one condensation trail which has
"chemicals" in it to prove you wrong.
You folks on the pro-chem side have a problem too: in spite of all the claims, why aren't there lots of rock-solid air sample test results to prove
The pictures and articles I linked to in my previous post - pictures and newspaper articles from the 1944 through the 1970's - were ignored. Why? Why
is an archived newspaper article talking about persistent contrails changing a bright sunny day to overcast and then possibly causing rain not
adequate evidence that there were persistent contrails pre-1998? Especially when there are more than one. Why the petty insistence on finding a movie
or commercial shot pre-'98 that has a bunch of contrails in it? Why are photos taken by individuals and/or photos from newspapers not just as
evidentiary as commercials or movies?
In any case, pictures don't prove anything. We know this because there are tons of pictures and videos of UFOs, Bigfoot, Nessie, and other anomalies
but none of them are considered proof of anything's existence.
It should be apparent by now to any objective reader or participant in this thread that there were persistent contrails prior to 1998.
Concede the point already; it doesn't disprove chemtrails!
As long as you (both sides) continue to try to struggle with absolutes, no one will win. Contrailers, you can't prove that NO chemtrails exist, and
chemtrailers, you can't honestly believe yourselves that most or all persistent contrails are chemical-laden.
The real questions we ought to be trying to answer are:
1) Is there a secret program or programs spraying chemicals in the air?
2) If so, what is its purpose?
3) If so, how can we prove it? (because, you all know as well as I do that no secret program will be admitted to until it is proven to
In any case, the burden of proof must be on the chemtrailers to prove they exist. Even if you could prove that persistent contrails didn't exist
prior to 1998, that would prove absolutely nothing except that contrails ain't what they used to be. It does not prove, one way or the other, that
any "chemicals" of any kind are in the contrails.
Seriously, the only way you can prove that chemtrails exist is by providing samples - or objective test results from samples - which have
chemicals in them. And even then, you haven't proved the greater issue of whether or not there is a conspiracy and what its purpose/intent may be.
Both sides here are avoiding the larger questions because they are more difficult to "prove" one way or the other, but if we would all stop, take a
deep breath, and think about it, the larger questions are the ones which must be answered, as they are important to all of us.
OZ, Essan, Weedwhacker, and gang - if there really IS a conspiracy and/or secret program spraying potentially harmful stuff on people, don't you want
to know? I know that you believe that there isn't, but if there WERE - you'd want to know, wouldn't you?
Goldenfleece, Nobody, etc. - if there really isn't a conspiracy and/or secret program spraying chemicals and stuff on people, wouldn't you like to
heave a sigh of relief and quit worrying about it? I know you believe there is, but don't you really just want to know the truth?
So we are all searching for the truth, we just have different opinions of what it is. Is there not any way that, instead of arguing about Patton
movies and piston engines and other insignificant details that don't amount to a hill of beans one way or the other, we could collaborate on the one
thing we have in common - finding the truth?
I believe that no one here is deliberately trying to further lies or disinformation. I believe that we all honestly believe what we believe, and our
reasons for trying to promote our position on this issue are genuine and honest, and oddly the same - to protect people. One side wants to protect
people from unnecessary fear, the other side wants to protect them from harmful chemicals.
So, I submit to both sides that we're hung up on pointless arguing and posturing over minor petty details that don't really matter.
Here are the things we really need to figure out:
IF there are chemtrails, then:
Who is doing it?
Why are they doing it?
What all chemicals are being used and what are their effects?
How are they doing it?
Why do only a few people get sick instead of lots of people?
Why aren't we seeing the chemicals in the soil, water, plants, and indicator animal species?
Why are atmospheric chemicals affecting only humans and not species which are normally more susceptible (such as birds)?
Why are they using relatively inefficient/ineffective means of dispersal of these chemicals instead of other possibilities? For example, in many of
the Southern states they sometimes come around and spray for mosquitoes - anything could be in that stuff and it would end up exactly where they want
it! Or, adding them to the chemicals which are already added to our drinking water would be much more efficient and effective, and cost a lot less!
What would REALLY be productive is if we all got together and started a research thread to try to answer some of these questions. If there really are
chemtrails, then whoever's doing it has done a fantastic job of divide and conquer - y'all are so busy fighting each other you aren't actually
learning or doing anything about contrails/chemtrails!
If we all put aside our differences and assumed that we're all good guys and we're all doing what we're doing for good and honest reasons, perhaps
we could actually accomplish something besides another really long thread with lots of warns and mod edits which a lot of people read for the