This weeks "Chemmy" special.A study on contrails turning into clouds. (WARNING::Too much data)

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

the point of my "photo analysis" was to point out that any WWII pics are not gonna have EXIF or any kind of Data on them these pics are scans [scans not scams] and do not constitute proof of anything. who says it's a real pic you would have to have the originals analyzed by a third party and post the analysis.

it's your claim so burden of proof is on YOU in this case. that's not trolling, just pointing a wee flaw is all



there is aample contemporary (WW2) written and eyewitness evidence of contrails existing in the same manner as the photos depict, from many many sources to make the photos evidential unless they can be shown otherwise.


tssk! hearsay. there is ample written and eyewitness accounts in the history books that are flat out lies
hnn.us...


Which is why one evaluates the quality of evidence, not merely it's volume.




If you are seriously suggesting there has been tampering then the burden of proof for that claim rests with you.


who said they were tampered with? i merely pointed out that they did not constitute proof and could not be analyzed properly


How do you know they can't be analysed? Have you checked the originals?

You say you ahven't OK - I'll take you at your word on that.......so in fact you have no evidence of anything.



I would not be surprised if the original negatives are probably still available for many of those photos - why dont' you go get some credible evidence for your claims? Talk is cheap.

(snicker, because no chemtrail advocate ever does
)


why should i ?


Because you allege there is a problem with them, and then don't back it up with any evidence - heck - why am I surprised by THAT??


you and your band bring "evidence" of "contrails" , your evidence is shown to be no good,


No it hasn't - you have asserted, without evidence, that it MIGHT not be good.....and I have provided evidence why I think it is good.

Until you can provide some backup for your ASSERTION all it remains is your opinion. If you want to jsutify it then you do so - wand I dont' give a ritund rodent's rectum whether you pay for whatever it takes or not - that's your choice.




posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



Which is why one evaluates the quality of evidence, not merely it's volume.


i just did, look at the data of those pics, also jpegs did not exist back then, uh HELLOOOO!!!. check


How do you know they can't be analysed? Have you checked the originals?


neither you nor anyone claiming those are pictures of contrails have provided the originals check


You say you ahven't OK - I'll take you at your word on that.......*so in fact you have no evidence of anything.


where did i say that i ahven't ? check
*irrational statements do not require a response


Because you allege there is a problem with them, and then don't back it up with any evidence - heck - why am I surprised by THAT??


probably because you skipped a page or two where i posted 3 screen captures of the files data in xnview
1 of them has been rendered with photoshop 4. check






No it hasn't - you have asserted, without evidence, that it MIGHT not be good.....and I have provided evidence why I think it is good.


Where? i may not have seen it. check


Until you can provide some backup for your ASSERTION all it remains is your opinion. If you want to jsutify it then you do so - wand I dont' give a ritund rodent's rectum whether you pay for whatever it takes or not - that's your choice.


i'm not into jsutifying whatever that is
lol use your fingers not your fists when you type, less spelling errors that way.
if you are going to froth at the mouth there is no point in responding to your irrationality and unreason, anymore.
not running away just waiting for you to post something reasonable on this thread for a change.

after all:
you are making a fool of yourself and your side just fine by yourself in my opinion.


Fail.
edit on 29-3-2011 by DerepentLEstranger because: double negative deleted



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



Which is why one evaluates the quality of evidence, not merely it's volume.


i just did, look at the data of those pics, also jpegs did not exist back then, uh HELLOOOO!!!. check


Gosh really? I did not realise that.....

But I do think I mentioned things like eye witness statements by flight crews, intercepting fighter pilots, by ground observers as corroborating the existance of contrails in the 1940's.

The lack of JPEGs back then is just 1 aspect of the quality of the evidence...and a trivial one at that, since it is axiomatic.




How do you know they can't be analysed? Have you checked the originals?


neither you nor anyone claiming those are pictures of contrails have provided the originals check


So that would be a "no" then. Why don't you go get them if you are concerned about their veracity?

I am not going to do so because I am not concerned about their veracity.



You say you ahven't OK - I'll take you at your word on that.......*so in fact you have no evidence of anything.


where did i say that i ahven't ? check


That would be in this post - www.abovetopsecret.com... - where I said why don't you go check the originals, and you replied with


why should i ? you and your band bring "evidence" of "contrails" , your evidence is shown to be no good, and i'm supposed to pay for your "proof", by ordering prints from the supposed originals? you and liejunkie are the ones claiming that those are pictures of "contrails"


Or does that mean you have checked them??

And also jsut above in the post I am replying to wher eyou confirmed that you have not "provided the originals".


*irrational statements do not require a response


Apparently they do......



Because you allege there is a problem with them, and then don't back it up with any evidence - heck - why am I surprised by THAT??


probably because you skipped a page or two where i posted 3 screen captures of the files data in xnview
1 of them has been rendered with photoshop 4. check


which is not actually evidence of anything being changed - as was explained to you back then.




No it hasn't - you have asserted, without evidence, that it MIGHT not be good.....and I have provided evidence why I think it is good.


Where? i may not have seen it. check


Yes you have seen it - the bit where I said there were ample eye witness reports of contrails in WW2, and you complained about there being many false things recorded in history - same post I linked to above.



Until you can provide some backup for your ASSERTION all it remains is your opinion. If you want to jsutify it then you do so - wand I dont' give a ritund rodent's rectum whether you pay for whatever it takes or not - that's your choice.


i'm not into jsutifying whatever that is lol use your fingers not your fists when you type, less spelling errors that way.



Hmm...yeah...nice pointless ad hominem in a post that also gives us "jsutifying", "i may not have seen it" (nice capitalisation), "i ahven't " (capitalisation AND spelling".


if you are going to froth at the mouth there is no point in responding to your irrationality and unreason, anymore.


No problem - I'm not frothing, so I expect ther is still some point in your replying - I look forward to it.


not running away just waiting for you to post something reasonable on this thread for a change.


Nice irony.


after all:
you are making a fool of yourself and your side just fine by yourself in my opinion.


do you have any facts to back that opinion up with??
edit on 30-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by liejunkie01
 





The reason i said you were trolling is that it is convenient that you just happen to show up at my threads posting information in a manner that i find a little disrespectful. This is my opinion and I have a pretty godd idea of what you are about. But that is neither here or now, so with that being said, I fell into you peoples trap of asking for pre 19609,s photos of contrails. Thank you all for setting the bait. I took it. You sit and nock some pictures that mightnot be able to verify, then you post a youtube video of chemtrails that you make. Hmmm.


i see but when the Con-Trollers always show up on a CT thread that is just a coincedence, they aren't on the look out for threads to bash and vilify as the work of mental cases and inferior intellects.

as for setting traps, sounds like you are projecting.

bwa-ha-ha! you are hoisted by your own petard and accuse me of lighting the fuse!
oh yuk ughoo!!!!!!!




this thread should be moved to the hoax bin as the title is misleading, it's not about chemtrails but "contrails"
as for too much data, that is a blatant falsehood,

nobody's head has exploded.
edit on 29-3-2011 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)


This prooves my point. Thank you for pointing out that you are an a--hole. Hiding behind a monitor.


A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth.[1] It is distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment,[1] or rumors and urban legends that are passed along in good faith by believers or as jokes.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...


hoax   /hoʊks/ Show Spelled
[hohks] Show IPA

–noun
1. something intended to deceive or defraud: The Piltdown man was a scientific hoax.

dictionary.reference.com...

Thank you for your input. You obviously are disturbed by the whole chemtrail thing. I only find it a curiosity. Not a religion such as you. This is evident by the way you reply.
edit on 30-3-2011 by liejunkie01 because: exernal content





new topics
 
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join