Geo-engineering/Chemtrail forum - success or failure?

reply to post by wcitizen


I have never said what you believe in or not. You make judgments about people who would refute evidence of "chemtrails" and their motives, yet I see the same descriptions more often in "chemtrailers."

Did I ever say that you held the same belief in the hoax? No.

Do you have trouble comprehending what is written?

At least we know the difference between a pot and a kettle.

reply to post by GringoViejo



So do we! That's why we know there are contrails and chemtrails...because there is a difference!

reply to post by SaveTheWolves


Then explain the difference.
In a way that cannot be refuted.
Believers all do the first and have yet to do the second.
It's why debunkers keep on debunking and pushing that 80+ years of scientific study. Tell us where we are wrong. If you are right, it should be easy.

reply to post by SaveTheWolves


Then go on and explain.

We'll wait.

Then explain the difference.

reply to post by stars15k



You really don't know the difference? It's funny that you would spend a lot of time arguing about something when you don't even know what you're arguing about.

Contrails are naturally occurring from jet engines. Chemtrails are aerosols containing things not normally found in contrails.

reply to post by SaveTheWolves


Have you personally seen a chemtrail? If so, how did you know it was a chemtrail and not just a contrail?

reply to post by SaveTheWolves


You can identify the chemical content of something that far over your head with your eyes? Unless you have (and are trained to use) a laser spectrometer I know you cannot possibly do that. If you think you can, you are fooling yourself.
If it's persistence that you believe is the clue, then please explain how a cloud can persist for longer than a few seconds/minutes/whatever time limit is currently in vogue.
And where is a test that shows something other than what would be expected in a jet's exhaust? I'd really like to see that, too.

reply to post by stars15k



You did not ask me to identify anything. You asked me the difference and that is what I told you.

I know you cannot possibly do that.

reply to post by stars15k


Also you have no way of knowing what I can or cannot do. You do not know me. See my avatar? You would do well to stop assuming things about people.

For now I leave...

Originally posted by SaveTheWolves

I know you cannot possibly do that.

reply to post by stars15k

 

Also you have no way of knowing what I can or cannot do. You do not know me. See my avatar? You would do well to stop assuming things about people.

For now I leave...

We do not know you. Nor do many of us want to I imagine.

But we do know that you cannot, as evidenced by your own lack of evidence.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by zatara

 

I didn't suggest closing it down - I asked whether people think it has been a success or not in its first month, and what criteria they would use to judge that, and I gave my opinion and reasons why I hold it.

Do you think it is a success or not?

Yes it is a succes.....for one...it reminds people that there is such a thing as chemtrails and can inform people with links to interviews and findings about the subject.

I think that it should remain for awhile at least..
there is no evidence to prove the existence of chemtrails,
but I think that people should always have a chance to weigh the evidence and decide for themselves..
however, there does remain the burden of proof, and the believers have failed miserably..
one simple thing is missing, and you cannot have any closure on the subject without this missing thing..
AIR and SOIL samples, that indicate an increase in abnormal chemical composition..
in other words.. the levels of Barium and Aluminum in the soil and air has thus far registered as normal..
why is there no uproar in the scientific community?
anyone remember Morgellons? I thought that was supposed to be a definitive proof of spraying..

fact is: we are living longer.. what about that?