Contrail Science - the site believers love to hate

reply to post by itsawild1

Watch and you will see-its easy here in n-wisconsin since we have rare plane traffic---then the government planes show up and spray stripes---[ WHICH I MIGHT ADD IS THE SAME PATH MOST TIMES-ITS JUST THE CHEM STREAM IS MOVING DOWN WIND] Which makes it look like a stripe They rarely do criss-cross patterns any more since it is so obvious they cant hide the strangeness of it, they do still do x patterns however.

Do you mean something like this..

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fc45b3aa2577.jpg[/atsimg]


Here is a link that will show you all types of contrails..

flickrhivemind.net...

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Scientific Method my asss..... That site does NOT use the scientific method. It's even implied in the sites title of "The Science and Pseudoscience of Contrails and Chemtrails"

Get that??? Pseudoscience.... that does not equal the scientific method.....
You gonna come back and say that they use science on contrails and pseudoscience on chemtrails?? ...either way you know that's BS.

I really hate to burst your bubble but the only ones capable of doing the scientific method on chemtrails and contrails is a Government enitity..... or a really wealthy private company.

I really can't believe you just tried to say that internet and arm chair researchers use the scientific method on that site.....

Next ... you are going to tell me I should believe the governments say in this matter ....LOL

Come on man.... even the German government has all but admitted spraying chemtrails.

Show us where the german government admitted to chemtrails.

And yes, it is complete pseudoscience to claim barium and aluminum should not be found in nature, or if it is, that it came from airplanes. Or that you should not have contrails over a desert, or that ice crystals should not last more than seconds, or that persistent contrails were never seen until recently.

And I noticed, you did not comment about anything else on the website, but photos. Nothing that is empiracle, nothing that is science based, nothing that has data. So if its just the photos that you disagree with, that mean everything else, you have no problem with?

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Scientific Method my asss..... That site does NOT use the scientific method. It's even implied in the sites title of "The Science and Pseudoscience of Contrails and Chemtrails"

Get that??? Pseudoscience.... that does not equal the scientific method.....

Gosh - perhaps it is refering to the psuedoscience of chemtrails, and het science of contrails??

You gonna come back and say that they use science on contrails and pseudoscience on chemtrails??

Not at all - as you will have read above it is not "they" who use psuedoscience on chemtrails - it is the people who beleive they exist and continue to post wrong, misleading and irrelevant information to "prove" it.

I guess that includes you.

...either way you know that's BS.

Nope - I believe it to be completely true.

There is no sience of chemtrails - not one single piece of verifiable evidence has been produced, EVER.

I really hate to burst your bubble but the only ones capable of doing the scientific method on chemtrails and contrails is a Government enitity..... or a really wealthy private company.

And you've done the studies to prove this?

i'm sure if you could get 10k chemmie believers to each contribute $10 that would be enough for a couple of sampling flights and a bit of time by a lab to analyse the results.

Lab analysis is relatively cheap - lots of chemtrails believers have done it, and then misrepresented the results - Mt Shasta, KSLA, Arizona Skywatch, etc.

Doesnt' seem to be too expensive at all really.

I really can't believe you just tried to say that internet and arm chair researchers use the scientific method on that site.....

Of course you can't - because if you did believe it you'd have to admit that you are wrong.

Shrug - it is normal for chammie faithful to dis contrail Science without ever managing to say what it is that it is wrong about.

come on - if it as bad as you say what is is that it has wrong??

Next ... you are going to tell me I should believe the governments say in this matter ....LOL

You should believe verifiable evidence, wherever it comes from.

Come on man.... even the German government has all but admitted spraying chemtrails.

No it hasn't

But thanks for this post - you have provided verifiable evidence that you don't know what the scientific method is, you don't really know anything about the costs of investigation, and you aren't up to date on discredited chemmie "evidence".

All in all an excellent example of the failure of the chemtrail "lobby" to provide any rational argument or credible evidence for the case - as usual.

bumped for dplum517, who seems to have a problem with science

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Periodically it gets a pasting by chemtail believers on here - either it's funded by NASA, or it's full of "alf truths and blatent lies", so on and so forth. But no believers ever manage to point out what these "blatant lies" actually are.

I mean if they are BLATANT then it should be easy to show that. Half-truths are of course a bit harder to identify - that's the whole point of them....but still....give it some effort huh?

Come on Chemtrailers... you're doing exactly what Aloysius said you would, and it's making you look the fool! Shut him down!! He's giving you an easy opportunity to point out all the BLATANT LIES that Contrail Science keeps posting on their stupid website. Stop letting Aloysius be right about you.

I did actually get one correction from the chemtrail people. I'd noted in the rebuttal of "What in the World Are They Spraying", that one sample was taken in "upper ski bowl". I noted that skis (and lift towers, and some cat tracks) are made of aluminum.

Michael J Murphy offered a correction, noting that it was not actually a ski area (some backcountry ski activity, but no ski lifts) so ski contamination was unlikely.

www.youtube.com...

So, I updated the article with a note to reflect this

contrailscience.com...

So that was great, someone pointed out an error, and I corrected it. The problem is:

A) Why did he not tell me of the error directly? Why bury it in part 2 of a YouTube video? Has he no interest in promoting the truth?

B) Why did he totally ignore all the vastly more significant sources of Aluminum, and the very well documented errors in sampling (like, sampling dirt instead of water)? If they were wrong, then surely he would have noted this, as it's much more significant than skis. If they were RIGHT, then why does he not offer corrections to his film?

C) Why, when he discusses that particular snow test result, does he not note it was taken in summer, during a heat-wave and forest fire, after a record dry season with high winds?

Bottom line: If you point out errors, then I will correct them. So please do. Post them here if you like, or on the site, or email me. If you want to focus on one page, then focus on the WITWATS page linked above. I'll respond to any error reports as quickly as possible.

So, I take it the silence means no errors then? No lies on contrailscience.com? Anyone?

Originally posted by Uncinus
So, I take it the silence means no errors then? No lies on contrailscience.com? Anyone?

strange huh? Goes to show you its not about the details, its about the end conclusion for them. Just like when websites post details that are completely wrong, as long as that website still claims chemtrails are real, they do not mind that there are so many mistakes.

And if a website has everything right but goes against chemtrails, even though they can not disprove the details, the website is still wrong if it does not support their conspiracy. We have asked chemtrailers for awhile to tell us what is specifically wrong or incorrect, and they usually just either disappear, scream shill, or just reply with more youtube videos

For the longest time I sat on the fence on the "chemtrail" debate. It's threads like this one that ultimately lead me to my decision that I don't believe there's any "spraying" going on.