Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Chemtrail Debunkers....

page: 82
36
<< 79  80  81   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by firepilot
 


You could suspect that someone came along and threw a bunch of chemical salt on the snow that melted faster.


In which case you could taste the melt water and see if it tasted of salt...and if you didn't find any, what then??




posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Here is the problem. Chemtrail believers do seem to understand that contrails exist and form behind planes operating normally- that is, planes without any sinister chemicals or intent. They presumably understand that contrails form at high altitude, look like long clouds, persist and sometimes turn into cirrus clouds.

(some chemtrail believers seem to not believe in the reality of contrails or misunderstand them, but in that case we'd have to start much further back with some science classes.)

Now the chemtrail believers are making a positive claim. They are asserting that some of the things that we see in the sky that look like contrails, form behind commercial planes like contrails, persist and then dissipate like contrails are not normal contrails but are in fact something else, usually chemical in nature, created deliberately and yet not publicly acknowledged or discussed and are therefore likely sinister.

So, what leads them to think this? Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that surely they must have some solid reason to think this, some evidence of some sort to support their claim, and they aren't just going on a hunch, right?

It's when you ask them for evidence that we start to run into trouble. Some point out the established methods of cloud-seeding as proof of their claims. Yet, nobody denies the reality or possibility of cloud seeding. We just have no reason to believe that some of the contrails we see are deliberate cloud-seeding attempts and in fact as some posters have pointed out, there's good reason not to believe this.

Others cite studies showing the possibility of geo-engineering as a method to combat global warming. All this demonstrates is that someone has considered the possibility, not that it is a reality and it is currently happening right under our noses (or over our heads, as it may be.) Again, the possibility of geo-engineering does not mean that the contrails we see are actually chemtrails.

Some people claim physiological effects in conjunction with contrails which must prove that the contrails are chemtrails which are causing the symptoms. But if a placebo effect- that is, nothing more than one's belief- can cause one to get better while not taking any actual medicine, then of course someone can make themself ill (or just think they feel ill) if it is in line with their beliefs. Combine this with selection and confirmation biases on the part of the sufferers and we're left with no reason to think their symptoms are actually caused by the contrails.

So bear in mind that I'm not saying what we see definitely aren't chemtrails. I don't claim to know everything. All I can say is that I know of no good reason to believe that this phenomenon that we observe- contrails, which are already well-explained- is actually something else. If you want me to believe that it's something other than what it appears to be, then by all means, PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Paul Rubino
 


That video sucks.

Has but 2 references at the end and one is contrailscience.com HAHAHA ....Fail.

Also....the old videos seem to show only Military planes..... kind of suspect IMO. The WW2 videos clearly show a lot of the planes leaving no trails while the others are leaving trails at the same time.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


so you couldn't actually find anything wrong with the video apart from only having 2 references??

Why is 2 a problem? Would 3 have made it better? 14?? How many references are required?


AFAIK references shuold be judged by the information they contain - not the number - have you actually found something wrong at contrailscience.com that needs correcting?

If so Mick will do it for you - all you have to do is point it out.......



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Hi,
I am a closed minded simpleton and I am only interested in hearing the opinions of people who already think that chemtrails exist. So, if you think that there is no such thing as a chemtrail, do NOT reply to this message in any capacity whatsoever.

Check out this link, this is really blowing my mind. But it's way over my head. educate-yourself.org...



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by khalan4
 


Yeah I can understand it being way over your head - since it is looks to me like bucket loads of woo - well written and completely meaningless.

I would characterise it as argumentum ex culo - and unfortunately for you yuo doon't get to pick and choose who gets to respond - see the admin edit at the top of the 1st post on page 1 of this thread.....






top topics



 
36
<< 79  80  81   >>

log in

join