It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

G. Edward Griffin Goes On Record in Video About Chemtrails Conspiracy

page: 7
49
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   


youtube videos tell them...


Funny I can check out Lady Gaga, enjoy old SNL, watch World News, and learn how to flash a rom for my cell phone... All with youtube, but it's never credible.


I just watched a meteor or something streak across 5 states earlier this morning, but it's on youtube, so I doubt it really happened.

I think it's all about paying attention really. Truth comes at you from all sides.




posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 




Yet another application... Glad someone's doing their homework.

I asked once for the source of that quote.
I will ask again.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
If someone wants to propose chemtrails as a credible theory then:

a) show how the decades old scientific explanation for waht you claim are chemtrails is flawed. ...


Notwithstanding which, chemtrails may be real - it's just that you can't see them Or, alternatively, people want you to mistake contrails for chemtrails in order to divert your attenton away from the real issue. Smoke and mirrors. But the sheeple never think that - they only listen to what youtube videos tell them. And so the human race fell


You answered your own question did you not?


What's wrong with the "decades old scientific explanation"? It's not scientific. That's the problem. Science is based on actual investigation. Here all your resident "debunkers" are simply labeling any kind of dumping of chemical agents into the air as one thing or another with absolutely no investigation or evidence other than "I have no reason to think otherwise."

I guess that's what really sets us apart, because from documents you can find online, there is definitely a reason to think otherwise. Not for every flight, but that does not negate it in general. Unless a lot of insiders are straight-up lying, and I have no good reason to believe that is the case. The standard lines of discrediting someone, "to get attention" or "to make money" just don't add up in this case.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


You (or someone, forget now) brought up HAARP, in relation to the so-called "chemtrails", and this is another baseless 'connection' that has no merit. There are plenty of topical threads dealing with HAARP, I suggest a review of those.


What has been added to jet fuel in the last 15 years?


Nothing much...most of what's been added have to do with the storage of the fuel, both in the 'tank farms', or facilities at the various airports, or for long-term viability whilst in the airplane's fuel tanks.


The DEF STAN 91-91 and ASTM D1655 specifications allow for certain additives to be added to jet fuel:

Antioxidants to prevent gumming, usually based on alkylated phenols, e.g., AO-30, AO-31, or AO-37;

Antistatic agents, to dissipate static electricity and prevent sparking; Stadis 450, with dinonylnaphthylsulfonic acid (DINNSA) as the active ingredient, is an example

Corrosion inhibitors, e.g., DCI-4A used for civilian and military fuels, and DCI-6A used for military fuels;

Fuel System Icing Inhibitor (FSII) agents, e.g., Di-EGME; FSII is often mixed at the point-of-sale so that users with heated fuel lines do not have to pay the extra expense.

Biocides are to remediate microbial (i.e., bacterial and fungal) growth present in aircraft fuel systems. Currently, two biocides are approved for use by most aircraft and turbine engine OEMs; Kathon FP1.5 Microbicide and Biobor JF. Review ASTM D1655, DEF STAN 91-91 and the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) for application guidelines.


en.wikipedia.org...

Oh..."biocides"! Some may scream. Yazooks! But, lest yet another 'chicken little' fear-mongering start....the biocides are to prevent bacteria from forming in the fuel, as it sits around. Does anyone understand what fuel GOES THROUGH (figuratively, and literally) as it flows from tank, to ultimately be burned in a jet engine??

Those little 'biocides' ain't gonna survive the heat of combustion...they BURN UP. Simple as that.

What comes out in the jet's exhaust isn't very much different than what comes out of your car's tailpipes. Typical unburned hydrocarbons, as a result of internal combustion...in fact, modern jet engines are actually fairly clean burning, compared to piston engines in cars. That's why cars have to have the catalytic converters, to treat the exhaust gases.



Where is the scientific evidence you provide it's been even the slightest bit safe?


Well, you can begin by researching it for yourself. The specifications are listed, there. Should be available for any inquisitive mind, online. No need to bring it here, and waste ATS server space, right?

Besides, chew on this, as a tidbit for thought:

A large number of people work around jet airplanes for many, many years, and suffer n ill effects from the exhaust gases. Fuelers, ramp workers, even pilots (admittedly, a bit less, since we're only exposed during preflights, as other jets happen to taxi by, and leave exhaust behind).

Most of the ground support equipment, such as belt loaders, Ground Power generators, anything that uses a diesel engine (in lieu of gasoline-powered vehicles) are fueled by THE SAME STUFF that is put into airplane's fuel tanks.

So...not only do ramp workers, mechanics, anyone outside and working in active airport operations areas is exposed to THOSE exhaust fumes, as well. A jet engine burns a lot hotter than a diesel piston engine, too. Diesels are a LOT dirtier, I think most people will agree?

Finally, there are plenty of anecdotal stories of some poor slob getting a full-on bath in raw jet fuel, every now and then. Nasty, stinky, messy....but certainly doesn't hurt anyone's health. In FACT, the mechanics have told me, plenty of times, it's FAR worse to get doused in hydraulic fluid, for it tends to irritate and burn on skin. Of course, HYD fluid isn't burned, as a rule. Obviously.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
That second 'quote' does not appear credibly cited anywhere that I can see, and appears to have approximately the same veracity as anything posted by "Aussie Bloke" or his ilk. I love these people who pretend to be experts, but would, obviously prefer to remain anonymous so they are not exposed for the chemtrail promoting scammers they are. Yeah right.

I also note that when videos are exposed for that they are, the chemmies go very quiet, and move onto the next.

When questioned about the logistics, they change the subject.

When challenged to produce JUST ONE verifiable video showing a trail in conditions when it shouldn't exist, they completely ignore the concept.

When the simple facts about contrail formation and the blindingly obvious reasons for the patterns are explained, they call it disinfo, even though this research has been available for decades.


Yes, when it comes to this tragically flawed conspiracy, please leave your brains at the door, and bear in mind that the ATS motto changes to "Embrace Ignorance"..



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
When challenged to produce JUST ONE verifiable video showing a trail in conditions when it shouldn't exist, they completely ignore the concept.


Two problems with this:

1) Any and all kinds of chemicals can be dumped in conditions where contrails "should" exist and you would never know the better by the flaws inherent to this argument. In fact if I were personally dumping chemical agents I would take advantage of this and dump every single time in a condition to where they could simply be argued as contrails.

2) You're the one picking and choosing in what conditions they "shouldn't exist" in the first place, and I have to question how honest you are being even with yourself.




I should make it clear that I'm not arguing definitely that any given thing is being dumped, for any given reason, etc. I'm just defending the possibility because the possibility is still there and to deny it without a GOOD reason (not "I have no reason to think someone would do this") would truly be illogical.

At the same time there is no way you can debunk this, for logical reasons (this instance of trying to proving a negative). You just can't prove this negative. So I wonder why you guys waste so much of your time and effort, on nothing but trying to impress your trust, faith, and naivete onto others.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

VTRPE (variable terrain radio parabolic equation) computer model. It is designed to provide the reader with a summary of the physics and numerical methods used in the VTRPE model, along with detailed instructions on the model's use and operation. The VTRPE computer program is a range-dependent, tropospheric microwave propagation model that is based upon the split-step Fourier parabolic wave equation algorithm. The nominal applicable frequency range of the model is VHF to K-band. The VTRPE program is able to make predictions for microwave propagation over both land and water. The VTRPE code is a full-wave propagation model that solves the electromagnetic wave equations for the complex electric and magnetic radiation fields. The model accounts for the effects of nonuniform atmospheric refractivity fields, variable surface terrain, and varying surface dielectric properties on microwave propagation. The code is written in ANSI-77 FORTRAN with MILSPEC-1753 FORTRAN language extensions


LINK
www.abstractstorm.com...

So what would VTRPE have to do with aerosols?

This computer radio frequency propagation program deals with radio waves and enables the RFMP system to visually see the terrain of a battlefield in three dimensions on a television-type screen.


The RFMP system also depends on a satellites to supplement the images of a battlefield picture obtained from the ground, thus producing the 3-dimensional images. In providing an interactive picture portraying in the radar screen, the RFMP system allows the computer operator to develop familiarity with the "environment" before a war mission occurs by playing a variety of "what if?" virtual warfare scenarios on his computer screen. Since all major modes of radio frequency propagation are modeled in his computer (the RFMP system), special, sometimes counter-intuitive, cases can be examined in detail and exploited during a battle. Initially, the VTRPE computer program only worked accurately over water and along coastal areas but not over land masses because the system's radar waves required an atmospheric condition known as "ducting," over land, to operate accurately.


This "ducting" problem was solved by releasing an aerosol, a mixture of barium salts into the atmosphere over the United States. Thus, they can make an atmospheric radio frequency "duct" with a base of barium aerosol released from aircraft.

One of the researchers, the physicist from Brookhaven, explained how the process works: The chemical and electrical characteristics of the mixture cause moisture to stay in the clouds. The aerosol sets up an electrical and chemical environmental that supports RF ducting for the RFMP/VTRPE warfare system."The mixture of barium salt from the aerosol when sprayed in a straight line will also provide a ducting path form point A to point B and will enable high frequency communications along that path, even over the curvature of the Earth, in both directions," he said. "Enemy high frequency communications can be monitored easier with the straight line A to B ducting medium."

www.libertylobby.org...
LINK

Oh I just love the snarky comments, who lives in the dark ages where you think that rude ad hominem comments negate actual proof?




[edit on 15-4-2010 by burntheships]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Any and all kinds of chemicals can be dumped in conditions where contrails "should" exist and you would never know the better


So chemtrails are only deployed when persistent contrails are expected. So what makes you think they are not persistent contrails?


You're the one picking and choosing in what conditions they "shouldn't exist" in the first place, and I have to question how honest you are being even with yourself.


Well the conditions under which they "shouldn't exist" have been very well know for well over 50 years.

When did chemtrails first appear?

How honest are you?

Edit: I repeat the challenge:

a) show how the decades old scientific explanation for waht you claim are chemtrails is flawed.

b) show how your hypothesis provides a much better explantion for all observations.


[edit on 15-4-2010 by Essan]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bsbray11
 

What am I trying to prove? Easy enough to turn that question around on you but to answer it; I'm not trying to prove anything.

I realize I can't prove something isn't happening (can't prove a negative). But you and the other "chemtrail" believers are unable to prove that something is happening.

I'm trying to provide some balance. I'm providing the information that a lot of people miss that it is perfectly normal for contrails to persist and spread, in spite of what people like Carnicom say. I'm trying to get people to apply some reason so they don't end up like the crazy rainbow lady, believing that everything is being done.



[edit on 4/15/2010 by Phage]


So by all accounts nothing is going on? Why is there a sudden awareness? Can I pull the CGI card for those WWII twenty second clips of legit contrails? How about pullin the CGI card for the International flight paths satellite mapping? If not, why is the CGI card exclusively for debunkers? Mine own eyes have witnessed these in southern cali on a hot summers day gridding the skies, turning them off & on at times. This is normal?.... Can u present a several hour long sustained video of skies with "persistent contrail" from the WWII era? Surely you don't think there wouldn't be a "persistent curiosity" and subsequently, filming of "persistent contrails" by scientists or anyone else for that matter?


[edit on 15-4-2010 by NOTHING 4 NO ONE]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTHING 4 NO ONE
 



Mine own eyes have witnessed these in southern cali on a hot summers day gridding the skies, turning them off & on at times. This is normal?....

\

Normal?

Yes.

Except for the "turning them off & on" part.

That is merely a phenomenon of the atmosphere, as airplanes fly through the airmass, and encounter differing levels of humidity.

The "hot summer's day" part is irrelelvant, as you should know, if you studied the atmosphere. Temperatures, and conditions at ground level have NOTHING to do with what's happening 35,000 feet over your head.

I watch the skies too....but, I have almost 40 years' worth of aviation experience, and can interpret things from that perspective. It seems that many laypeople just can't understand, yet. Perhaps they can be educated, and maybe even in this thread right here.

Where I live, I am seeing the same flights, in my case from many af the airports in the NorhtEast, on their way to places like Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, St. Louis, etc...and, some headed more westbound, as well.

A few days ago...shazaam! Contrails.

Today? Nada. Zip. Zilch. Upper level atmosphere different, no contrails. Same flights, the airlines still fly, that doesn't change.

CONTRAILS!

Here, a website for you to learn from:

flightaware.com...


And, to see the routes that airplnes fly, and how they compare to what you see in the sky, from your vantage point on the ground:

skyvector.com...


You're in SoCal.

Type in the nearest airport (example, KLAX for Los Angeles. You must use the leading 'K' for the site to recognize the airport. That is the ICAO identifier, versus the IATA, or airline code).

Enter the airport code, then look for the tab labeled "Enroute H-x" so you can see the High Altitude IFR charts for your area.

THEN, you will see the Jet Airways, and the structure that they form, and know why the airplanes fly the paths they fly.

Have fun!!!



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by NOTHING 4 NO ONE
 



Mine own eyes have witnessed these in southern cali on a hot summers day gridding the skies, turning them off & on at times. This is normal?....

\

Normal?

Yes.

Except for the "turning them off & on" part.

That is merely a phenomenon of the atmosphere, as airplanes fly through the airmass, and encounter differing levels of humidity.

The "hot summer's day" part is irrelelvant, as you should know, if you studied the atmosphere. Temperatures, and conditions at ground level have NOTHING to do with what's happening 35,000 feet over your head.

I watch the skies too....but, I have almost 40 years' worth of aviation experience, and can interpret things from that perspective. It seems that many laypeople just can't understand, yet. Perhaps they can be educated, and maybe even in this thread right here.

Where I live, I am seeing the same flights, in my case from many af the airports in the NorhtEast, on their way to places like Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, St. Louis, etc...and, some headed more westbound, as well.

A few days ago...shazaam! Contrails.

Today? Nada. Zip. Zilch. Upper level atmosphere different, no contrails. Same flights, the airlines still fly, that doesn't change.

CONTRAILS!

Here, a website for you to learn from:

flightaware.com...


And, to see the routes that airplnes fly, and how they compare to what you see in the sky, from your vantage point on the ground:

skyvector.com...


You're in SoCal.

Type in the nearest airport (example, KLAX for Los Angeles. You must use the leading 'K' for the site to recognize the airport. That is the ICAO identifier, versus the IATA, or airline code).

Enter the airport code, then look for the tab labeled "Enroute H-x" so you can see the High Altitude IFR charts for your area.

THEN, you will see the Jet Airways, and the structure that they form, and know why the airplanes fly the paths they fly.

Have fun!!!









Still you are telling me nothing. I have conducted research. This plane wasn't even near 35,000 ft. Additionally, you're only half right about the atmosphere having these "pockets" of just right conditions for producing legitimate contrails. On a hot sunny day from horizon to horizon signifies there is an uniform condition of high pressure barring out any pockets of moisture or other influence producing these morphing smokescreens.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightmare_david

Originally posted by Phage
Using your mind means not taking everything you see in a youtube video at face value.[edit on 4/14/2010 by Phage]


Can I say this to anyone who reads anything posted by you here on ATS? If you have any issue with that then you're going against your own logic.


Originally posted by bsbray11 in a reply to Phage
What are you trying to prove?


That he's right and everyone else that disagrees with his opinion is wrong.


Phage is doing an excellent job of trying to get you to think rationally.

But it's virtually an impossible job getting conspiracists to question their own beliefs. It's true about every conspiracy theory discussed. The number of appeals to ignorance and incredulity by conspiracy believers is astounding but they are what forms the basis of conspiratorial thinking, with a touch of fear, doubt, and, with some, paranoia.

The video by Griffin in the OP is a classic example of how people make money writing for conspiracy theory believers. It's profitable and claims they make never have to be demonstrated - you accept them at face value. Maybe he's related to David Ray Griffin, the retired Theologian (ironic) who makes good money off of gullible 9/11 Truthers by misrepresenting facts and outright lying.

G. Edward Griffin stepped into the doodoo by making a strategic mistake, however, when he made the claim that "chemtrail spaying" comes from predominantly NATO member countries. (I'll deal with that some other time.)

In any case, skeptics will continue to demonstrate how and why you have no evidence for "chemtrails". Phage is one of many doing a great job at that.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by nightmare_david

Originally posted by Phage
Using your mind means not taking everything you see in a youtube video at face value.[edit on 4/14/2010 by Phage]


Can I say this to anyone who reads anything posted by you here on ATS? If you have any issue with that then you're going against your own logic.


Originally posted by bsbray11 in a reply to Phage
What are you trying to prove?


That he's right and everyone else that disagrees with his opinion is wrong.


Phage is doing an excellent job of trying to get you to think rationally.

But it's virtually an impossible job getting conspiracists to question their own beliefs. It's true about every conspiracy theory discussed. The number of appeals to ignorance and incredulity by conspiracy believers is astounding but they are what forms the basis of conspiratorial thinking, with a touch of fear, doubt, and, with some, paranoia.

The video by Griffin in the OP is a classic example of how people make money writing for conspiracy theory believers. It's profitable and claims they make never have to be demonstrated - you accept them at face value. Maybe he's related to David Ray Griffin, the retired Theologian (ironic) who makes good money off of gullible 9/11 Truthers by misrepresenting facts and outright lying.

G. Edward Griffin stepped into the doodoo by making a strategic mistake, however, when he made the claim that "chemtrail spaying" comes from predominantly NATO member countries. (I'll deal with that some other time.)

In any case, skeptics will continue to demonstrate how and why you have no evidence for "chemtrails". Phage is one of many doing a great job at that.

You can't be serious. Empirical evidence manages to miss you altogether. I feel sorry for you and Phage, I really do. So far you and the very few who agree with your short sighted explanations are in rare company. Research the video of the weatherman acknowledging the "chaff" that has been released by planes. Use scientific method and park your non believing ass on the grass and look, you needn't look hard either. They are either spraying or not. Funny how these "persistent contrails" persist in a manner unlike the normal flight paths of LAX, John Wayne(OC airport) and Ontario airports. This matter deserves further investigation regardless of your all's opinions. Therefore I nominate you guys to be strapped to the fuselage to observe and report your findings.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   
The burden of proof remains on those who claim "they are spraying" us.

Good luck.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
The burden of proof remains on those who claim "they are spraying" us.

Good luck.


Same worn cop out fashion.
You haven't dedicated your time into actually seeing this going on have you? You have taken the easy way out. What proof are you willing to demonstrate key word is DEMONSTRATE not re-post, side with phage etc. regarding your OWN experiences with seeing these anomolies?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by CHRLZ
When challenged to produce JUST ONE verifiable video showing a trail in conditions when it shouldn't exist, they completely ignore the concept.


Two problems with this:

1) Any and all kinds of chemicals can be dumped in conditions where contrails "should" exist and you would never know the better by the flaws inherent to this argument. In fact if I were personally dumping chemical agents I would take advantage of this and dump every single time in a condition to where they could simply be argued as contrails.

So, you concede the point, and we have to presuppose that the people doing the alleged spraying are deliberately using natural contrail formation to cover their evildoings. In other words, you concede that these videos are NO useful evidence whatosever.

Have you heard of Ockham's Razor, perchance..? Me, I go on this basis - if the conditions say a contrail should be there, then one will be. It's a contrail. Now you may say that "Ah yes, but there's something else in that contrail". But that means the visual observation is WORTHLESS.

That's a pretty basic, simple concept... You need to provide other evidence, and stop flogging stupid WORTHLESS videos.

But there seems to be quite a few folk here saying that the CONTRAILs are the evidence. And that simply doesn't fly...

As I said, my challenge still stands proudly.
THEY ARE CONTRAILS.
(Except for the odd one or two that seem to show genuine fuel dumps, cloud seedings, APU emissions, etc.)


2) You're the one picking and choosing in what conditions they "shouldn't exist" in the first place, and I have to question how honest you are being even with yourself.

DON'T MISREPRESENT ME. I am saying and have always said that contrails WILL form under quite well-known conditions, with some minor uncertainty at the boundary conditions (as you would expect) where such esoterica as engine design or pre-existing dust or airborne pollutants may come into play.

ANYONE, yes, you included, can look up that research, from DECADES ago, and do it yourself. You can then use Flightaware, and the UWYO site (amongst many others) to identify flights and look at high altitude conditions, crosschecking as you go.

And it is absolutely and blindingly obvious that 99.9% of 'chemtrail' videos are completely devoid of any supporting details - for reasons that, again, are blindingly obvious. If the information was given, they would be proven to be contrail-conducive conditions, and therefore the video is a complete waste of time.

IF you have some convincing evidence - maybe:
- an account from a genuine whistleblower rather than an employee of Thomas / Carnicom (or one of the known pranksters who inhabit this board with their oh-so-convincing stories)
- a video that does show a plane in 'non-contrail' conditions leaving inexplicable trails
- in situ testing (ie high altitude) testing

..then maybe you might have a case.

But you DON'T. And until you or anyone does, then this is all a huge waste of time, and diverts attention away from genuine issues. WHY is it that you don't want to talk about the inefficiencies and problems in large scale 'chemtrailing', and how easy it would be to use alternative methodologies?


I should make it clear that I'm not arguing definitely that any given thing is being dumped, for any given reason, etc. I'm just defending the possibility because the possibility is still there and to deny it without a GOOD reason (not "I have no reason to think someone would do this") would truly be illogical.

I'm getting rather annoyed... WHEN DID I SAY "I have no reason.."????

I know why you say that - you don't like my reasons, you won't address them, and you can't debate them. So you make a ridiculous claim that I have no reasons, and dismiss them. Shame on you - you wouldn't last five seconds in a genuine scientific or research environment.


At the same time there is no way you can debunk this, for logical reasons (this instance of trying to proving a negative). You just can't prove this negative.

Completely assbackwards.
1. I CAN prove contrail formation conditions. If contrails wouldn't form, neither would cirrus clouds. Are you denying cirrus clouds???

2. It IS easy to get atmospheric soundings and contrail formation predictions, and these can be verified and cross-checked against well-established meteorological science.

3. I CAN tell you how to identify aircraft flights and flight paths, and anyone can do that easily as well.

THEREFORE, I CAN PROVE WHEN AND WHERE CONTRAILS WILL BE. As can anyone. (By the way, fuel dumps and seeding are all recorded and documented as well, did you know?)

So YOU are the one trying to prove that something we can all see and can be easily investigated (given enough information), is something OTHER than contrails. And at the moment, you've got absolutely nothing but vague handwaving, and a few research reports showing scientists are interested in many ways of combatting global warming and other geo-engineering concepts. Wow, science is interested in possibilities - who woulda thort.



So I wonder why you guys waste so much of your time and effort, on nothing but trying to impress your trust, faith, and naivete onto others.

Check mirror carefully for naivete. When you manage to address the links, info, concepts and observations I have made (all of which were studiously and carefully avoided in your response), maybe you can try again.

And after $6000 was ripped off NAIVE gullible chemtrail believers by Thomas/Carnicom, I think there is some value to making sure others don't fall for their scamming bulldung. Don't want to talk about that one either??

And you think otherwise, do you? - that folks should go for these sort of 'projects', run by deceitful low-life scum?


Then I have to ask... do you work for them?


[edit on 16-4-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTHING 4 NO ONE
Still you are telling me nothing. I have conducted research.


So WHERE IS IT?? Show us the documents, the spreadsheets, the charts, the images, the videos and all the supporting information.

Alternatively, you may prefer to admit you are a chairborne web-based 'expert' and pretender.


This plane wasn't even near 35,000 ft.

Now as a researcher, you will know the reliable methods that allow a determination of aircraft height from the ground, so back to you - prove that statement. I'm impressed, very few people know how to do this, so when you post your evidence, you will gain even greater acclaim....


Additionally, you're only half right about the atmosphere having these "pockets" of just right conditions for producing legitimate contrails.

Err, say what???? He's 'half right'? What does that mean, exactly?


On a hot sunny day from horizon to horizon signifies there is an uniform condition of high pressure barring out any pockets of moisture or other influence producing these morphing smokescreens.

May I have some Italian dressing with that meaningless (and completely false) word salad?


[edit on 16-4-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
So, you concede the point, and we have to presuppose that the people doing the alleged spraying are deliberately using natural contrail formation to cover their evildoings. In other words, you concede that these videos are NO useful evidence whatosever.


No, I didn't say any such thing. I was pointing out why your reasoning is flawed to begin with. And if you want more details on this just re-read the post you are responding to.


Have you heard of Ockham's Razor, perchance..?


I know all about it. For clarification, it doesn't mean "the simplest answer is always correct." Sorry. The ONLY TIME "Occam's Razor" is even relevant is when you have two theories that explain phenomenon equally well. If chemicals are being dumped into the air then both theories (chemtrails exist vs. chemtrails don't) are not equals. And you have been unable to prove that chemicals are not being dumped into the air. Therefore ASSUMING they are not is illogical and you have no logical basis to use Occam's Razor.

I'm also not interested in your "challenge." I have nothing to prove to you, and you've made it clear you are hellbent on not seeing what we are talking about anyway. You have absolutely no way of actually debunking chemicals are being dumped, so you just deny or down-play the possibility and demand unreasonable evidence as you will ALWAYS assume you know what is being sprayed/dumped into the atmosphere no matter what images we show you. It's an easy game for you, to reinforce your own ego and worldview, and that's all this is.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, I didn't say any such thing. I was pointing out why your reasoning is flawed to begin with. And if you want more details on this just re-read the post you are responding to.


I did, quite carefully. You said, and I quote verbatim:
"Any and all kinds of chemicals can be dumped in conditions where contrails "should" exist and you would never know the better"

Read those words again, and remember, they are YOURS. You did indeed concede the point.

And let's be VERY SPECIFIC - if you don't concede the point just show your eager audience ANY VIDEO with supporting information that proves the trails should not have been there.




Have you heard of Ockham's Razor, perchance..?

I know all about it.

If you know all about it, how is it that you didn't know that both Ockham and Occam are regarded as correct spelling???


For clarification, it doesn't mean "the simplest answer is always correct." Sorry.

Who said it did? - you seem to have an endless desire to put words in other people's mouths. But that interpretation is in fact about right, even if not a perfect translation. How about you give us YOUR simple, but better interpretation of Occam's/Ockham's Razor? In your very own words, here's a little space for you...


_____________________________________________________



The ONLY TIME "Occam's Razor" is even relevant...

..in your learned opinion..??


is when you have two theories that explain phenomenon equally well.

Gee, do ya mean like we have one explanation that explains contrails as the natural result of operating a turbine jet in conditions of low temperature/high water vapour (simplification for brevity), and another that suggests the exact same trails are scary chemicals instead?

Yeah, I toooootally see how that's not two theories explaining the same phenomena.



If chemicals are being dumped into the air then both theories (chemtrails exist vs. chemtrails don't) are not equals.

But above you admitted they ARE, visually. You can't just change the rules when you want to.


And you have been unable to prove that chemicals are not being dumped into the air. Therefore ASSUMING they are not is illogical and you have no logical basis to use Occam's Razor.


Hilarious attempt to change tack there! Bravo! (No-one saw it, did they?)

We have proved that contrails exist. You admit that.

YOU have FAILED to show anything that is demonstrably not a contrail or that supports the chemtrail conspiracy postulation, namely that many/most 'trails' are chemtrails.

Or wait.... are you backing away from that position?

So let me ask - WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF THE CHEMTRAIL CONSPIRACY?

Are you suggesting that all, many, few, or hardly any of the trails are chemtrails? This is a fundamental issue, so come clean, and feel free to clarify your position for everyone here.

(Beware, if you haven't spotted it - it's a trap! Careful with your answer here...)



I'm also not interested in your "challenge."

No, of course you aren't, that's why you keep responding, yet avoiding it.


Neither you or any chemtrail supporter will EVER take that challenge, DESPITE IT BEING PART OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PROOF OF CONCEPT that you need.

What a (completely unsurprising) copout.

Like I said, you wouldn't last 5 seconds in a science or research environment, which I'm afraid is typical of those that support this garbage.

In the end, you have NOTHING, not a scrap of useful evidence, let alone the fundamental understanding of contrails, that would be a pre-requisite for any reasonable research. There is no reasonable research on this topic, because anyone with half a brain immediately sees what utter garbage it is.


I have nothing to prove to you..

Ah yes, we knew that was coming - you only have stuff to prove to those even more credulous than yourself. The tinfoilhat mantra, and it continues:


and you've made it clear you are hellbent on not seeing what we are talking about anyway. You have absolutely no way of actually debunking chemicals are being dumped, so you just deny or down-play the possibility and demand unreasonable evidence as you will ALWAYS assume you know what is being sprayed/dumped into the atmosphere no matter what images we show you. It's an easy game for you, to reinforce your own ego and worldview, and that's all this is.


Yes, accuse others of not seeing the 'truth', and of course avoid all the realities, and whatever you do, don't post (or respond to) any credible research.. And keep repeating the same old videos, despite them being shown as contrails/fuel dumps/aircraft COG testing/etc (do you deny this happens - want some examples?) - yes, there's always a newbie waiting to be duped.

[thinks]I think I might start a vote on the lamest conspiracy ever. This one would get my vote.[/thinks]

Whoa, did i think out loud? dang.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   


I think I might start a vote on the lamest conspiracy ever. This one would get my vote.



Any time you witness a fuel dump it's apparently not a contrail. There's some rationale you might comprehend.




top topics



 
49
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join