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.

 

China admits to dumping chemtrails for weather modification. What do they look like??

page: 21
79
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
All white trails in the sky are contrails.


So how are you going to prove this?




posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
All white trails in the sky are contrails.


So how are you going to prove this?


Since you cannot provide any evidence otherwise, we can decide that all white trails in the sky are contrails. Notice how you couldn't even respond to the rest of my post?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
All white trails in the sky are contrails.


So how are you going to prove this?


Since you cannot provide any evidence otherwise, we can decide that all white trails in the sky are contrails


If you can't understand why this is fallacious reasoning then I'm not going to even bother trying to explain it to you.



Notice how you couldn't even respond to the rest of my post?


Actually I responded to it countless times already throughout the thread.

What I'm saying is that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a water vapor contrail and any number of other chemical trails in the atmosphere, just by looking at them.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You are correct, you cannot tell the difference. What you aren't understanding is that it doesn't matter because cloud seeding is not happening at high altitudes where contrails can form. So there is nothing up there but contrails.

Unless you found some high altitude cloud seeding?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
You are correct, you cannot tell the difference. What you aren't understanding is that it doesn't matter because cloud seeding is not happening at high altitudes where contrails can form. So there is nothing up there but contrails.


You keep saying this but you aren't even trying to prove it.

Your idea of proving this, is asking me to prove you wrong. Again, if you don't understand why this is not how evidence and proof work, there is no use at this point even trying to explain it to you. I might as well be trying to debunk the idea that there are fairies on the dark side of the Moon. I guess there must be fairies there because I can't prove there aren't.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
What I'm saying is that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a water vapor contrail and any number of other chemical trails in the atmosphere, just by looking at them.


You seem to keep ignoring that nobody says they can.

People are assuming they are contrails, because they look like contrails, and nothing else is known to look like that.

The reason I'm still bickering it that unless you are making a purely epistemological point of "you can't know anything", then it seems like you are suggesting there is some reason to suspect they are not contrails.

Do you think there's a reason to suspect? Because that's really what the debate should be about. Not epistemology and phenomenology. We can't tell what things are by looking at them. We get it. Now tell us what evidence you have to suggest they are not what we assume (with good reason) them to be.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by bsbray11
What I'm saying is that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a water vapor contrail and any number of other chemical trails in the atmosphere, just by looking at them.


You seem to keep ignoring that nobody says they can.


Then stop acting like you can tell the difference just by looking at them!

You pretend you agree and then in the very next post you come out of left field again claiming that you automatically know what every white trail is, and demanding to be proven wrong when you never proved a damned thing in the first place.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You're twisting it around. The evidence supports that the fluffy white trails behind aircraft at altitude are contrails, you are daftly claiming that they could be something else (which is possible, but they aren't). You see, the burden of proof is on the claimant. By claiming that anything in the sky is anything but a contrail, you become the claimant, and need to provide evidence for your claims.

So for you have provided none. Have a read on the burden of proof.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

Crikey.
The media report it. In the areas that are affected. It isn't big news, it's routine. Why should CNN be interested?
Oh wait a minute...this just in.
edition.cnn.com...

See, when it has widespread interest (in this case in relation to the possibility of being used to mitigate severe weather, big in the news right now) there is national coverage. But when the ranchers in South Texas want it, not so much.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
By claiming that anything in the sky is anything but a contrail, you become the claimant


Your only problem is that I'm not actually claiming any given white trails are not contrails. I am only pointing out the fact that when presented with any photo, you can't just pop up and act like some authority and you already know what you're looking at. Then you would be the claimant and you already admitted you can't tell what a trail is just by looking at it.




Originally posted by Phage
Crikey.
The media report it. In the areas that are affected. It isn't big news, it's routine. Why should CNN be interested?
Oh wait a minute...this just in.
edition.cnn.com...

See, when it has widespread interest (in this case in relation to the possibility of being used to mitigate severe weather, big in the news right now) there is national coverage. But when the ranchers in South Texas want it, not so much.


Wow, Phage is actually posting links to conspiratorial articles about chemtrails manipulating these severe storm patterns, something he otherwise downplays and obfuscates... except when trying to prove that the media actually gives this stuff the time of day it deserves.


This is one hell of a thread isn't it?

edit on 30-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
By claiming that anything in the sky is anything but a contrail, you become the claimant


Your only problem is that I'm not actually claiming any given white trails are not contrails. I am only pointing out the fact that when presented with any photo, you can't just pop up and act like some authority and you already know what you're looking at. Then you would be the claimant and you already admitted you can't tell what a trail is just by looking at it.


The claim that we can't know what we are looking at is true, the implication that it could be anything but a contrail is a fallacy (seeing as how there is no evidence to support that there are any white trails in the sky that aren't contrails). This is not a hard concept.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
You are correct, you cannot tell the difference. What you aren't understanding is that it doesn't matter because cloud seeding is not happening at high altitudes where contrails can form. So there is nothing up there but contrails.


You keep saying this but you aren't even trying to prove it.

Your idea of proving this, is asking me to prove you wrong. Again, if you don't understand why this is not how evidence and proof work, there is no use at this point even trying to explain it to you. I might as well be trying to debunk the idea that there are fairies on the dark side of the Moon. I guess there must be fairies there because I can't prove there aren't.


Fascinating. I'm going to have to write an article about this. "debunking the pedantic epistemologist". Adeclark has fallen into your trap by using absolutisms like "cloud seeding is not happening at high altitudes", when he should have said the more accurate "there's no evidence to suggest that cloud seeding is happening at high altitudes". I love how you simultaneously ask him to prove something is not happening, but then say you can't prove there aren't fairies on the moon.

Yes, as scientists we must allow all possibilities. Of course in practical life we don't waste time wondering if a chair is a hologram before we sit on it. We make a lot of reasonable assumptions. Common parlance is to describe those things as things we know, because there is a paucity of contradictory evidence, and a lot of evidence of continuity.

I'm 99.999% sure those are contrails, because they look exactly like contrails, and I don't know of anything else that looks like that photo.

Do you want to step past your epistemology, and actually point out some evidence that they might not be? Because otherwise I think we are done.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 




Wow, Phage is actually posting links to conspiratorial articles about chemtrails manipulating these severe storm patterns, something he otherwise downplays and obfuscates... except when trying to prove that the media actually gives this stuff the time of day it deserves.

What are you talking about? I posted a link to a transcript of a CNN broadcast in which cloud seeding was discussed. Nothing about chemtrails.
edit on 5/30/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You pretend you agree and then in the very next post you come out of left field again claiming that you automatically know what every white trail is, and demanding to be proven wrong when you never proved a damned thing in the first place.


I did not say I automatically know what they are.

One last time:

The evidence points towards them being contrails. I can't prove it by looking at them any more than I can prove my cat is not a robot by looking at it. But past experience and knowledge makes me fairly sure they are contrails.

Now what's wrong with that? Is there any any evidence that they are NOT contrails? You said they look like contrails. Are you aware of anything else that looks like that?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
I love how this thread morphed into a "lets attack each other and not worry about the real topic at hand" thread ..I'm actually starting to believe 45% of ATS consists of these advance A.I bots design to derail all the important threads.....



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   
i never wrote this but i find it interesting..

Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen proposed the idea of adding sulphur to the atmosphere in 2006 in order to create a haze and reduce sunlight reaching the surface. It would be like lowering a screen in a greenhouse. The idea gained momentum recently when over 1,000,000 tons of sulfur dioxide was released into the atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean. This and other atmospheric spraying is possibly the cause of some chemtrails. It is similar to cloud seeding, except at high altitudes, and is designed to produce thin layers of cloud. Aircraft flying at similar altitudes inject water vapor into the atmosphere, which condenses quickly as the exhaust hits the very cold air. Most of the time, people are confusing these with chemical trails.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


A contrail isnt going to come from a prop plane. If you see something like that behind a prop plane, theyre obviously spraying something. Contrails come from jets at high altitudes.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
All white trails in the sky are contrails.


So how are you going to prove this?


The whole premise of this thread is based on this and I find it highly inaccurate and honestly...what a waste of time. I have followed this thread from the beginning and it's still totally pointless.

Read up...

All white trails in the sky are contrails.

So how are you going to prove this?

This thread's baseless idea:

You can't say if a contrail isn't a chemtrail just by looking at it...

This is like saying that you can't say the moon isn't made out of cheese just by looking at it...

Farfetched? In ancient centuries, people believed it was...But science proved it otherwise, didn't it?

Your assumptions that contrails are chemtrails...just by looking at them is as inaccurate. Baseless.

Show me some tests, some validated data that chemtrails do exist. Show me the chemical traces in any contrail. Show me studies. Not wild claims, distorted assumptions and baseless ideas...

Amazing.




edit on 31-5-2011 by SonoftheSun because: grammar correction

edit on 31-5-2011 by SonoftheSun because: correction(s)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
this seems to be one baby step more effective than a rain dance.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   
So, all white mists are chem-trails it seems. Does this mean fog is too? Or when I go outside and breathe when its cold, chem-trails come out of my mouth? :0



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join