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.

 

Why do chemtrails have to be bad?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Hello, I have a problem with chemtrail conspiracy theorists. Why do chemtrails have to be bad?

To start off lets look at a picture of a chemtrail




That is a typical chemtrail. So tell me, what makes that an evil bio-weapon meant to destroy people and make us more easily controlled? why can't it be a chemical agent meant to help the environment and fix sinus problems?

Not much else for me to say. Please, tell me some reasons why they are bad.




posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by typwar
Hello, I have a problem with chemtrail conspiracy theorists. Why do chemtrails have to be bad?

To start off lets look at a picture of a chemtrail




That is a typical chemtrail. So tell me, what makes that an evil bio-weapon meant to destroy people and make us more easily controlled? why can't it be a chemical agent meant to help the environment and fix sinus problems?

Not much else for me to say. Please, tell me some reasons why they are bad.


Well, I do not want to be treated for something I do not really have a problem with except for twice a year, which I just deal with for a couple of days.

I see your point and I have asked that myself many times, but treating me for anything without my permission is not acceptable.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
One would assume if it was a save the world project there would be people attempting to take credit for it.

In my 25 years I have never seen an entity not promote the good things they are doing unless they are attempting to cover up a previous mistake
edit on 12-5-2011 by readytorevolt because: last 10 words



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by typwar
To start off lets look at a picture of a chemtrail

That is a typical chemtrail.

Where did we get to the point that the word "contrail" is being replaced by "chemtrail"? "Chemtrail" isn't even a word:




Nor are the words interchangeable.

I think what you meant to say was that picture depicts typical CONtrails. And it does. But not only does the word "chemtrail" not even exist, neither does any verifiable, repeatable scientific evidence to suggest as much.

In a nutshell, if they really were spraying some chemical to harm us, that chemical would be all over everything outside and thus people would be able to get samples and prove "chemtrails" exist.

And those chemicals wouldn't be visible. What you're seeing in the sky and your picture are normal, every-day contrails that have existed since powered flight. In other words: just frozen water vapor. In other words: just clouds.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by typwar
 


The unknown creates fear.

Don't know what a contrail is or how they form?

Then it must be an evil chemtrail!




edit on 12/5/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 




Where did we get to the point that the word "contrail" is being replaced by "chemtrail"? "Chemtrail" isn't even a word:


Bonez, Bonez, Bonez...

I thought we'd covered this before. A word not being in the dictionary does not mean the phenomenon doesn't exist. By that logic:



you don't exist either (though I'm not sure on your stand on the birther issue-obviously you are a truther.) Oops can't use those words, they don't exist because they are not in the dictionary.

By the way, here is part of the criteria Merriam-Webster uses to determine what words make it into the dictionary (see the link for the full explanation):


Before a new word can be added to the dictionary, it must have enough citations to show that it is widely used. But having a lot of citations is not enough; in fact, a large number of citations might even make a word more difficult to define, because many citations show too little about the meaning of a word to be helpful. A word may be rejected for entry into a general dictionary if all of its citations come from a single source or if they are all from highly specialized publications that reflect the jargon of experts within a single field. To be included in a Merriam-Webster dictionary, a word must be used in a substantial number of citations that come from a wide range of publications over a considerable period of time. Specifically, the word must have enough citations to allow accurate judgments about its establishment, currency, and meaning. The number and range of citations needed to add a word to the dictionary varies. In rare cases, a word jumps onto the scene and is both instantly prevalent and likely to last, as was the case in the 1980s with AIDS. In such a situation, the editors determine that the word has become firmly established in a relatively short time and should be entered in the dictionary, even though its citations may not span the wide range of years exhibited by other words.



How Words Get in the Dictionary


edit on 13-5-2011 by coyotepoet because: fix pic



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by coyotepoet
you don't exist either (though I'm not sure on your stand on the birther issue-obviously you are a truther. Oops can't use those words, they don't exist.

The term "truther" was a descriptor given to 9/11 researchers by government loyalists. But you see what it says under my name? It says "Researcher", not "truther". It doesn't bother me in the slightest whether that word exists or not. So, you're barking up the wrong tree with that one.

What the fact of the matter is, is that the word "chemtrail" not only doesn't exist, but verifiable, repeatable scientific evidence doesn't exist to even prove the word "chemtrail" that doesn't exist.

What we have is a made-up word by a person or persons, who never backed up that word with any real scientific evidence. So then, how can people keep professing a made-up word with no evidence to suggest that the made-up word should even exist?

Kind of hilarious.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Because then it wouldn't be a conspiracy!




posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





The term "truther" was a descriptor given to 9/11 researchers by government loyalists. But you see what it says under my name? It says "Researcher", not "truther". It doesn't bother me in the slightest whether that word exists or not. So, you're barking up the wrong tree with that one. What the fact of the matter is, is that the word "chemtrail" not only doesn't exist, but verifiable, repeatable scientific evidence doesn't exist to even prove the word "chemtrail" that doesn't exist. What we have is a made-up word by a person or persons, who never backed up that word with any real scientific evidence. So then, how can people keep professing a made-up word with no evidence to suggest that the made-up word should even exist?


That is just sidestepping the issue. What you call yourself is immaterial as is where the word came from. Take a survey of 100 people about what they would call someone that believes as you do and I'm sure 90 of them would use the word "truther" even though it doesn't appear in the dictionary. (For the record I rankle at "truther" because it is a propagandists pejoritive.)

When people become aware of something that they weren't aware of before they have to call it something, and most often they will call it some variant of that which it comes closest to for which a word already exists. And "verifiable evidence" has nothing to do with it, otherwise "truther" would be in the dictionary.

I have no problem with your other, more intellectually honest arguments against "chemtrails" (even though I may not agree with them-at least they are not backhanded.) What I have a problem with, as I stated is using the fact that the word doesn't appear in the dictionary to "prove" that the phenomenon doesn't exist.
edit on 13-5-2011 by coyotepoet because: cleaning



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by coyotepoet
What I have a problem with, as I stated is using the fact that the word doesn't appear in the dictionary to "prove" that the phenomenon doesn't exist.

That statement is not entirely accurate. Far too many people are using the word "chemtrail" to describe typical, normal contrails. "Chemtrail" isn't even a word. We already have a word for contrails and that's "contrails".

Furthermore, if you go back and re-read my posts, I am not discounting the "phenomenon" based on the sole existence of a word. To have a "phenomenon" also requires some level of evidence. Therefore, it is required that there be some sort of verifiable, repeatable scientific evidence to back up a word that doesn't even exist.

But, since there is no scientific evidence, and the word "chemtrail' doesn't even exist, all that is left is a bunch of fear-mongering, to put it bluntly.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Ok, it might just be me.... but I'm still trying to figure out if your kidding or not?! Sinus problems? Helping? Chemtrails? This doesn't even form a sentence in the minds of many. Not because we dont know how to put sentences together, but because we know better.

Peace, NRE.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by typwar
 





That is a typical chemtrail. So tell me, what makes that an evil bio-weapon meant to destroy people and make us more easily controlled? why can't it be a chemical agent meant to help the environment and fix sinus problems?


I'm becoming more and more convinced that the bio-weapon aspect is more of a red herring. I'm becoming more convinced that the aluminum and barium reported to be in the trails are meant to facilitate HAARP and it's frequencies.

users.elo.com.br...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join