This Forum Should Be Closed Down !

reply to post by GringoViejo


Here's the template:

Make broad claims but provide no evidence. When pressed for evidence, go on the attack, claiming anyone who asks for evidence is a sheep. If anyone succeeds in trapping you into proving your claims, shift your claims. Then, as a nice touch, claim THEY are shifting THEIR claims.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

--------

As for evidence, ive already stated i'd take any sort of proof. air samples that can be tested. not just someone's unsubstantiated clams.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by GringoViejo

 

Here's the template:

Make broad claims but provide no evidence. When pressed for evidence, go on the attack, claiming anyone who asks for evidence is a sheep. If anyone succeeds in trapping you into proving your claims, shift your claims. Then, as a nice touch, claim THEY are shifting THEIR claims.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

--------

As for evidence, ive already stated i'd take any sort of proof. air samples that can be tested. not just someone's unsubstantiated clams.

No, LOL, HERE really is the template, ask for evidence but never define just what that would be, and ever time some is presented claim no THAT's not evidence, Lather rinse, repeat over and over and over. What a game.

So for the fourth time for the comprehension challenged or those AFRAID to clearly define what they would consider evidence:

Again what would you consider credible evidence and how might that be obtained to your satisfaction?

Originally posted by Tecumte
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

Again what would you consider credible evidence and how might that be obtained to your satisfaction?

Be specific.

Examples of what would be good evidence have been discussed on here many times.

I'll repeat a few since you either missed them or forgotI think all of these would necessarily be verifiable of course - in that anyone would be able to show the same results if they had hte access, equipment, etc)

1/ anything amiss in fuel supplies

2/ evidence of numbers commercial passenger jet aircraft fitted out with "spray gera" of any kind - it does not include 1-off's such as firefighting DC-10's or 747's - they cannot account for contrails over vast swathes of the USA

3/ Samples taken from contrails showing something out of the ordinary - as a proper scientific sampling programme using clean protocols to avoid contamination, etc.

4/ Evidence of manufacture, handling, shipping, puming into a/c of some nefarious substance - identification of the substance would be useful too.

5/ Decent whistleblower evidence - not some 15th hand report of a drunk pilot trying to pick up chicks in the backbocks of Washington state, not some anonymous mechanic spouting stuff that makes it look like he isn't a mechanic at all - someone prepared to give evidence under oath that can be checked.

Exactly how you get these is up to you - video, stills, transcripts.....

The main point is that they are verifiable - so other people can confirm the nature of the evidence and it is not arguable.

Credible evidence would be hundreds of air samples taken at the source, namely fly a plane loaded with the appropriate testing equipment flying through the chemtrail.

We was also need a baseline for comparison.

Tests of what's in contrails has been done before, so none of the above is difficult, you just need the finances and someone who can tell a contrail from a chemtrail.

Gotta wonder why it hasn't happened yet, doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise what needs to happen to expose a massive conspiracy.

Ok GREAT, I see FINALLY we have ONE thing actually listed that bunkster types would consider 'evidence'. Air samples. Ok, now would that be from 25,000 feet or so, what are we talking about here? We're making progress.

reply to post by Tecumte


Your question has been answered (and ducked and ignored) dozens of times...the evidence to "prove" so-called "chem"-trails?

First, actual samples of the clouds that people think are "chem"-trails.

Second, this is easier perhaps --- in all these years, some photos of actual airplanes equipped to do this alleged "spraying". Along with that, you could provide photos of the ground-based support equipment at the airports. The storage locations for the "chemicals" that are "uploaded" to be "sprayed".

The factories where these "chemicals" are made, and loaded for transport to the airports and faciliities. Addresses, and again. photos as well.


So far?? Bupkis.....

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Tecumte
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

Again what would you consider credible evidence and how might that be obtained to your satisfaction?

Be specific.

Examples of what would be good evidence have been discussed on here many times.

I'll repeat a few since you either missed them or forgot

I think all of these would necessarily be verifiable of course - in that anyone would be able to show the same results if they had hte access, equipment, etc)

1/ anything amiss in fuel supplies

2/ evidence of numbers commercial passenger jet aircraft fitted out with "spray gera" of any kind - it does not include 1-off's such as firefighting DC-10's or 747's - they cannot account for contrails over vast swathes of the USA

3/ Samples taken from contrails showing something out of the ordinary - as a proper scientific sampling programme using clean protocols to avoid contamination, etc.

4/ Evidence of manufacture, handling, shipping, puming into a/c of some nefarious substance - identification of the substance would be useful too.

5/ Decent whistleblower evidence - not some 15th hand report of a drunk pilot trying to pick up chicks in the backbocks of Washington state, not some anonymous mechanic spouting stuff that makes it look like he isn't a mechanic at all - someone prepared to give evidence under oath that can be checked.

Exactly how you get these is up to you - video, stills, transcripts.....

The main point is that they are verifiable - so other people can confirm the nature of the evidence and it is not arguable.

Super, now we're getting somewhere, why it takes dozens of posts for anyone clearly to define what they would consider acceptable evidence is absurd. I'll check over your list and give it some thought and see how doable any of these really are. Maybe we can all add some ways to accomplish this as well and work TOGETHER to try and find acceptable info.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Tecumte

 

Your question has been answered (and ducked and ignored) dozens of times...the evidence to "prove" so-called "chem"-trails?

First, actual samples of the clouds that people think are "chem"-trails.

Second, this is easier perhaps --- in all these years, some photos of actual airplanes equipped to do this alleged "spraying". Along with that, you could provide photos of the ground-based support equipment at the airports. The storage locations for the "chemicals" that are "uploaded" to be "sprayed".

The factories where these "chemicals" are made, and loaded for transport to the airports and faciliities. Addresses, and again. photos as well.


So far?? Bupkis.....

edit on Sun 15 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

Great, not sure who it is that has 'ducked and ignored' but I have asked multiple times what would be considered acceptable evidence to you DB's (my level of evidence from personal observation, reading patents and white papers, obviously is different) so it's good to see a list. Let's see if these are realistic and doable as I read over them and give them some thought.

reply to post by Tecumte


It doesn't - you either have a poor memory, or are spreading dis-info - you were told some time ago that sampling would provide good evidence - www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why are you claiming that you didn't know until now?

I even posted a thread about photograpjhy techniques a couple of months ago - www.abovetopsecret.com...

and of course "before your time" the request has been made many times too - eg

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Still waiting for evidence.

You claim they're real, so you either have evidence to back up your claim, or you don't, it's as simple as that.

And again, the credibility of evidence is not established before it is presented.

So if you have no evidence, you have nothing to add but your own belief, which is not evidence.

Which means your claim holds no water.

reply to post by Tecumte


Finally may be the word for you but I think I can speak for a couple of members here, those that you are calling names, we've been down this road a few times now..

Hell I started a thread about the very thing I mentioned earlier, I provided links to a group that can carry out these very tests, who had a Gulfstream capable of reaching these chemtrails.

I even provided results from tests carried out on contrails as the baseline.

No pro-chemtrailer was interested.

Why wouldn't they be interested?
Why did it take a non believer to find these things out?

reply to post by Chadwickus


Star for you. I think its because MOST people are inclined to believe in the Conspiracy,more then having the facts on hand. You cannot call yourself a skeptic,and disregard hard data. I actually dislike being labeled for being on the fence for some of the conspiracy's out there,but unfortunately,the Labels are there.IF you had someone actually test the trails being released at 30,000 feet,I am sure those who believe that they are only contrails,will be vindicated. That is the real reason WHY none of those who are diehard fanatics,and claim chemtrails as being just that,Havnt come up with the proof to back their claims. So,chemtrail believers, Why not take up Chadwickus bet,and prove him WRONG ???????????? Waiting patiently for the responses.

Originally posted by PinealGland


What the hell is going on here?

Apparently, an argument.

Originally posted by PinealGland
Isn't it against the terms and conditions to do this, to take people out of context like this?

Are you joking me? If that were the case there would be 4 members left, 3 owners. However, authoring a 16 page diatribe that is completely off the topic, is against the T&C... the topic is "This forum should be closed down!" Not Pineal's thesis on upper air quality or lack thereof.

Originally posted by PinealGland
Is this not the very definition of misinformation??????????????????/

No, misinformation would intimate that I was trying to be misleading, I wasn't,,,, thinking your post was off-topic and annoying is not misleading, it's simply judgmental.

Originally posted by PinealGland
This is exactly how people treat Alex Jones via the daily hit-pieces.

Hmmmm and what are the odds that you are an Alex Jones fan.....that goes a long way toward explaining your tantrum.

Originally posted by PinealGland
Whatever. You guys are just giving him more publicity

Alex Jones also is not on topic, this, by the way, is also against the T&C.

Originally posted by PinealGland
and getting more and more people interested

Clearly, because your ranting and angst displays the moral majority....

Originally posted by PinealGland
As for the rest of the replies to me... I already said I'll give you guys less and less of my energy if you make less and less sense.

Oh dear! Please don't do that

To answer "what evidence would be acceptable", we'd first need to know exactly which version of the theory you ascribe to.

Is it the one with separate spray nozzles, or the one where stuff is in the fuel, or the one where something is injected into the exhaust?

Is it the one using commercial flights, or the one with fake commercial flights, or the one with unmarked planes, or the one with cloaked planes?

Is it the one at high altitude, or low altitude, or high altitude that falls to low altitude?

Is it the one where persistent contrails never existed before 1995, or the one where there were less of them, or the one where they were a different color, or the one where they are the same, but have secret chemicals in them?

Is it the one where they are spraying barium, or aluminum, or both, or blood cells, or something else?

Is it the one where the chemtrail affect the weather, of the one there they affect people's health, or the one that you can smell, or the one that creates "chembows", or all of the above?

So please, define your theory, and I'm sure you'll get some suggestions as to what might be good evidence to go after. Failing that, whatever evidence you have will be a good start.

Sorry, I have to:

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


You are an evil and vindictive person!!

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


I can't remember the last time I laughed that hard.

Wow.... I think I just found my next new hobby.....making a weekly video for an ATS thread I'm going to start....

The thread title "This can NOT be natural!"

I re-ran that video 4 different times, trying to determine if she MOVED the camera sideways, or if she moved her entire BODY sideways to change the orientation of the rainbow.


Ladies and Gentlemen, this can NOT be natural.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


Wow. The problem is that the people who need to "get" this video won't get it!
(That's the second line.)

reply to post by incrediblelousminds





I see we have "evidence" now!



This video is going to be my new "weather modification/chemtrail conspiracy" litmus test.

Star for you!

reply to post by GringoViejo


Well, if you like that, then you're gonna LOVE this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...