Chemtrailers: Your time is NOW!

page: 3
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

At present there is exactly zero evidence that what people see in the skies are chemtrails.


And unless somebody takes samples from the trail up there I can see in the sky (hypothetically of course, I'm sitting in my room and it's nighttime), then there is absolutely zero evidence it is a contrail.

Therefore there will always be somebody who thinks it's a chemtrail, until it's measured. Nothing wrong with that, is there?


Edit: I should've phrased the first paragraph differently: What I mean to say is, if someone sees what they think is a plane in the sky spraying, then unless that trail is measured, then there is no proof it is only a contrail.

[edit on 27/5/10 by GobbledokTChipeater]




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 
Hmm they must be hittin you pretty good...
When you wake up from whatever fantasy world you live in I will be glad to hear your hysterical claims If you can think to have one...




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOWILLFALL
 


So, based on that bill, chemtrails are exotic weapons deployed against space aliens ...... and had that bill ever passed, they would have been banned.

Which is makes it about as useful as evidence that what you see in the sky are chemtrails as a blast furnace made out of chocolate. And that raises the question as to why people keep mentioning the bill at all?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 
Who said anything about aliens? You ok?
.
.
.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater
 


But given 80 years worth of research suggesting it is just a contrail, why would anyone think it was anything else?

After all, there is no reason to suppose chemtrails would be visible from the ground. Unless they act and behave exactly like normal engine exhaust .



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
So if an independent team of skeptics went up in a plane and collected samples from a supposed chemtrail (the ones that spread out and last for hours), and then performed the tests and found them to be the same as ordinary contrails, would that evidence do much to dispel the myth?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 
Again the argument for this being condensation is erroneous frankly...Watch my first video It's clear that "altitude" has nothing to do with it...



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by BlankSlate
 
If they would do that (because mainstream science hasn't given this the time of day) then I would gladly listen, at least.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
But given 80 years worth of research suggesting it is just a contrail, why would anyone think it was anything else?

After all, there is no reason to suppose chemtrails would be visible from the ground. Unless they act and behave exactly like normal engine exhaust .



I have no idea why people think things, it could be a multitude of reasons.

There are no reasons to suppose they wouldn't be visible from the ground either.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 2, 2001


Where's the science again? You presented a 1992 document detailing contingency plans proposed for global warming to be implemented only in extreme circumstances. Then, another article saying chemtrails exist. Then HR2977, Kucinich's bill which was eventually rewritten to exclude a chemtrail reference.

At some point as the OP suggested, someone's going to have to get up there and collect some samples. Otherwise this remains a faith based belief and an unproven claim.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 
As well as on your part, sir.
.
.
.
Plus, one of my links had a scientist claim that it was weather modification...So I don't really see that, maybe you just skipped through it?


and yes they excluded the chemtrail reference, and that's not a bit strange?


Maybe they saw how many people are taking pictures and filming...



[edit on 27-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Suggestion to Chemtrailers..... If you want to make the movement more acceptable to septics, start calling it "climate engineering".

Last year the rocket that NASA launched with a 100 KG load of Aluminum Oxide (sept 09) is well documented.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So is Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
In news releases about new supercomputers they usually mention their intended purpose. Many are meant for climate modelling (others for financial, health, and military purposes).

Makes me wonder what kind of calculations and experiments could be performed with that data.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
But none of this is evidence that what you see in the sky are in fact chemtrails.

And that is what needs to be proven.

Not that chemtrail spraying could occur.

Not that chemtrail spraying does occur.

But that what people see and claim to be chemtrails are indeed chemtrails - and not, as most others claim, just normal aircraft contrails. That is the hoax



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
Plus, one of my links had a scientist claim that it was weather modification...So I don't really see that, maybe you just skipped through it?


Talk talk. Where's the science again?



and yes they excluded the chemtrail reference, and that's not a bit strange?


No. What's strange is that it was in there in the first place. Kucinich is a notorious drunk and known to be loopy.



Maybe they saw how many people are taking pictures and filming...


Probably. This is why someone needs to provide some evidence that doesn' resort to pictures and videos falsely claiming them to be "chemtrails".



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 
Look up what zzombie was referring to...You see they believe we are stupid and for some they may not be to far off base, the only proof I need is when I talk to my 80 year old grandma who continues to say these are something strange...80 years and contrails existed how long?
We obviously will not agree and the evidence is there that you will not or cannot hear, fine.




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
This was deleted just thought I'd re-post...Hope this isn't off topic...
.
.
www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by One Moment

So let's sit back in two groups; knowers and doubters,


I would go with panickers and skeptics myself since we're gonna be all bold about it. This kind of has that aire that you guys are clearly right and we are clearly stupid despite the fact that you haven't shown me one solid piece of evidence to show that we are deliberatly being poisoned

-Kyo



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
I talk to my 80 year old grandma who continues to say these are something strange...80 years and contrails existed how long?
We obviously will not agree and the evidence is there that you will not or cannot hear, fine.



I have consistently asked for scientific results, that's all. I won't say you're stupid, I won't say they don't exist. I need irrefutable evidence and so far the "evidence" presented is not irrefutable.

Certainly your grandmother noticed changes in contrails because much has changed. Flight paths, flight traffic, flight altitude, engine technology, fuel technology, accumulation of atmosperic contaminants, overall air temperatures, amongst other things have all changed. It should be of no surprise that contrail behavior will exhibit changes as well. Change alone is not evidence of anything conspiratorial.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 
As I said this conversation will obviously go nowhere with you because you've made up your mind, I have heard both sides of the argument and I have drawn my conclusion...If congress isn't gonna prove it to you then neither will a scintilla of evidence and/or proof...





new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join