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: 25
79
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


My apologies - yes I see it - my god - you are right about something - that bit is actually there
- congratulations


now how does is actuall y contradict the bit hat says that chemtrails are SPECIFICALLY NOT CLOUDSEEDING??




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
now how does is actuall y contradict the bit hat says that chemtrails are SPECIFICALLY NOT CLOUDSEEDING??


Cloud seeding is dumping chemicals into the air. It leaves a white trail behind the plane. A chemical. Trail. And it is for weather modification purposes, and has nothing to do with normal contrails.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
now how does is actuall y contradict the bit hat says that chemtrails are SPECIFICALLY NOT CLOUDSEEDING??


Cloud seeding is dumping chemicals into the air. It leaves a white trail behind the plane. A chemical. Trail. And it is for weather modification purposes, and has nothing to do with normal contrails.


Yes indeed - congratulations on getting all that correct too.

All of that also applies to dropping water from firefighters too - although the weather modification is indirect by way of combating fires which have effects on weather.

So now we know that both cloud seeding AND water bombing have those characteristics.

so what part of the defintion that NEITHER ARE INCLUDED IN HTE TERM CONTRAILS are you still having trouble understanding?


Or are you still on that trip that any chemicals dumped into the atmpshere is included in hte term? How about agricultural spraying? Airshow visibility trails? Rocket Exhausts?

Is it only white trails that count in your private definition? If so then what happens when they dye airshow trails to red or blue? How about "water bombing" when they add fire retardants and make it red?

If it is all colours then why can't you tell the colours appart?

How do you know that proposed SRM techniques will be white tails when they haven't happened yet?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Yes indeed - congratulations on getting all that correct too.

All of that also applies to dropping water from firefighters too - although the weather modification is indirect by way of combating fires which have effects on weather.


Using that reasoning you could say a fart is weather modification.

I meant intentional weather modification. I'm not sure why you're even trying to downplay weather modification now when you've been admitting it through this whole thread already? Do you just like antagonizing people just for the sake of antagonizing them?


so what part of the defintion that NEITHER ARE INCLUDED IN HTE TERM CONTRAILS are you still having trouble understanding?


The word "chemtrails" comes from two words: chemical. trails.

All these other arbitrary distinctions you are making now came after the fact and are just a bunch of distracting semantics. It has nothing to do with their color.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
[
I meant intentional weather modification. I'm not sure why you're even trying to downplay weather modification now when you've been admitting it through this whole thread already?


I'm not downplaying weather modification at all - it exists, it is a business, farmers, national, local and state governments pay a lot of money for it.

it simply isn't included in the term chemtails.

How is that so hard to understand??



Do you just like antagonizing people just for the sake of antagonizing them?


am I antagonising you? well sorry about that - but I feel I'm actaully educating yor.

Proper use of words requires that you know their meaning - it is very difficult to communitcate properly if you are always using words that do not mean what you think they mean.




so what part of the defintion that NEITHER ARE INCLUDED IN HTE TERM CONTRAILS are you still having trouble understanding?


The word "chemtrails" comes from two words: chemical. trails.


Yes indeed.

And as you pointed out, but I deleted already, a fart is indeed a chemical trail too. As is breathing, car exhaust, evaporation from a river, etc.

All are chemical trails.

So either you admit them all into the term "chemtrail", or you make some distinction so you can concentate on the ones that everyone understands to be chemtrails (except you apparently)

You have apparenly decided that you are going to include cloud seeding in the term chemtrails. but no-one else does.

So when you compalin about "chemtrails" and identify cloud seeding as the culprit everyone else goes "Huh? clouod seeding isn't chemtrails - we've done that a thousand times before - what are you on about??"

so while you may find this process agravating I'm actually doing you a service by enabling you to better communicate - no need to thank me



All these other arbitrary distinctions you are making now came after the fact and are just a bunch of distracting semantics. It has nothing to do with their color.


Not quite true - I still dont see anywhere your explaination of how you know the proposed SRM techniques will be unable to be differentiated from contrails - part of that will have to be colour - if they are not white then that'd be a dead giveaway that htey are not contrails - so how do you know they will be white?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I'm not downplaying weather modification at all - it exists, it is a business, farmers, national, local and state governments pay a lot of money for it.

it simply isn't included in the term chemtails.

How is that so hard to understand??


Because cloud-seeding is literally a form of laying trails of chemicals across the sky.

How is that so hard to understand??



And as you pointed out, but I deleted already, a fart is indeed a chemical trail too. As is breathing, car exhaust, evaporation from a river, etc.

All are chemical trails.


Alright, how about from an airplane?


A chemical trail left by an airplane... that is not just water vapor.

Do you realize that arguing over the definition of a word actually has nothing to do with whether or not you can tell what a plane is actually spraying into the atmosphere?



Not quite true - I still dont see anywhere your explaination of how you know the proposed SRM techniques will be unable to be differentiated from contrails - part of that will have to be colour - if they are not white then that'd be a dead giveaway that htey are not contrails - so how do you know they will be white?


I never claimed I would know the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail. That's the whole point of this thread. You can't tell what a white trail behind a plane is just by looking at it with your eyeballs.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I'm not downplaying weather modification at all - it exists, it is a business, farmers, national, local and state governments pay a lot of money for it.

it simply isn't included in the term chemtails.

How is that so hard to understand??


Because cloud-seeding is literally a form of laying trails of chemicals across the sky.

How is that so hard to understand??


It's not hard to understand at all - i get that.

But the defintion of "chemtrail" is not the same as the literal meaning of the phrase "chemical trail" - how hard is it to get that??




And as you pointed out, but I deleted already, a fart is indeed a chemical trail too. As is breathing, car exhaust, evaporation from a river, etc.

All are chemical trails.


Alright, how about from an airplane?


So now you are limiting it to chemtical trails lfrom aircraft - fair enough - why only aircraft?

How about water bombing from aircraft? It doesn't have much water vapour (as per your next point)



A chemical trail left by an airplane... that is not just water vapor.


so including normal exhaust whether visible as contrails or not? (because they are all "not just water vapour" - they include CO, CO2, NOx, SOx, etc)


Do you realize that arguing over the definition of a word


Yes - I think I had noticed that




actually has nothing to do with whether or not you can tell what a plane is actually spraying into the atmosphere?


Hey I keep asking you how you know that the proposed SRM's will look like contrails and you keep faiing to answer - don't blame me for you choosing to porpose a defintion of the word that doesn't fit the common one and then finding you have problesm because of it!!





Not quite true - I still dont see anywhere your explaination of how you know the proposed SRM techniques will be unable to be differentiated from contrails - part of that will have to be colour - if they are not white then that'd be a dead giveaway that htey are not contrails - so how do you know they will be white?


I never claimed I would know the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail. That's the whole point of this thread. You can't tell what a white trail behind a plane is just by looking at it with your eyeballs.


Like I said - you stated CATEGORICALLY that we would not be able to spot the difference between the proposed SRM techniques and contrails - so how do you know the proposed SRM techniques will be white?

In point of fact I reckon there are many white trails that I could differentiate - CO2, salt and AgI for cloud seeding for example I think I could probably differentiate from contrails, ag spraying too - why don't you get some pics of them and try me??

edit on 1-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
It's not hard to understand at all - i get that.

But the defintion of "chemtrail" is not the same as the literal meaning of the phrase "chemical trail" - how hard is it to get that??


I can find no actual dictionary definition of the word. Wikipedia is the closest thing and I have been debating going on there and changing the article myself just to prove a point. As far as I know, dictionaries are generally the only accepted authority for defining words. Otherwise it's simply a matter of "this is what the word means because I say so!" or "this is what the word means because this person says so!", and what if I don't accept your choice of definition, because I say so? I'm no less of an authority for defining words than you or Wikipedia. Then you just have to whine about it because yours is as good as mine. How about that -- is that hard to understand?



A chemical trail left by an airplane... that is not just water vapor.


so including normal exhaust whether visible as contrails or not? (because they are all "not just water vapour" - they include CO, CO2, NOx, SOx, etc)


Sure, and you know what? There are plenty of people who believe those do have effects on the environment.

And you would also have to include cloud-seeding, spraying crap to reflect sunlight, and anything else they spray into the atmosphere. My ultimate point being -- you can't distinguish many/most of these chemicals just by looking at the white trail itself.


Like I said - you stated CATEGORICALLY that we would not be able to spot the difference between the proposed SRM techniques and contrails


Sorry but can you provide the exact quote? If I did so then it was a mistake, because my point is that you wouldn't know what the difference between them would be.



In point of fact I reckon there are many white trails that I could differentiate - CO2, salt and AgI for cloud seeding for example I think I could probably differentiate from contrails, ag spraying too - why don't you get some pics of them and try me??


Where were you earlier in the thread? Oh yeah you were right here. We tried that already, and the only way you could tell was by looking at the plane itself. Without seeing the type of plane, where it was coming out, etc., you were not making any observations about the trails themselves.

Not to mention I wouldn't be able to find any photos of those things that I could distinguish myself, because they look the exact same to me. So if anyone can distinguish them and find photos that show the differences, shouldn't that be you?
edit on 1-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
www.urbandictionary.com...



chemtrail

Contrail-like cloud left by aircraft believed by "spiritual" people to contain chemicals or crystals. These chemtrails are allegedly part of a secret government program either to save earth from global warming or to kill off half of humanity.
Spiritual guy: Look! That's a chemtrail. I wonder what the government is doing to us.

Normal guy: Uh ... perhaps you should have your medication adjusted.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
It's not hard to understand at all - i get that.

But the defintion of "chemtrail" is not the same as the literal meaning of the phrase "chemical trail" - how hard is it to get that??


I can find no actual dictionary definition of the word. Wikipedia is the closest thing and I have been debating going on there and changing the article myself just to prove a point. As far as I know, dictionaries are generally the only accepted authority for defining words. Otherwise it's simply a matter of "this is what the word means because I say so!" or "this is what the word means because this person says so!", and what if I don't accept your choice of definition, because I say so? I'm no less of an authority for defining words than you or Wikipedia. Then you just have to whine about it because yours is as good as mine. How about that -- is that hard to understand?


Oh it's not hard to understand either - I've got all your contributions about it here to remind me!!


However words often exist before they are included in dictionaries, and have generally understood meanins BEFORE then too - that is how the meaning gets included in eth dictionary - it has been "generally agreed" or understod beforehand.



A chemical trail left by an airplane... that is not just water vapor.


so including normal exhaust whether visible as contrails or not? (because they are all "not just water vapour" - they include CO, CO2, NOx, SOx, etc)


Sure, and you know what? There are plenty of people who believe those do have effects on the environment.

Me included - is that relevant at all?


And you would also have to include cloud-seeding, spraying crap to reflect sunlight, and anything else they spray into the atmosphere. My ultimate point being -- you can't distinguish many/most of these chemicals just by looking at the white trail itself.


You keep saying that and keep failing to put a couple of pictures side by side in order to prove the point.......



Like I said - you stated CATEGORICALLY that we would not be able to spot the difference between the proposed SRM techniques and contrails


Sorry but can you provide the exact quote?


www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

combined - the first yuo say we can't differentiate between 1 white cloud and another, the 2nd says we can't differentiate between SRM's & contrails.



If I did so then it was a mistake, because my point is that you wouldn't know what the difference between them would be.


It's a mistake saying we wouldn't know the differnce because we wouldn't know the difference??


The question remains then - how do you know the trails from those SRM's would be white?




In point of fact I reckon there are many white trails that I could differentiate - CO2, salt and AgI for cloud seeding for example I think I could probably differentiate from contrails, ag spraying too - why don't you get some pics of them and try me??


Where were you earlier in the thread? Oh yeah you were right here. We tried that already, and the only way you could tell was by looking at the plane itself. Without seeing the type of plane, where it was coming out, etc., you were not making any observations about the trails themselves.


Yes I did make observatinos about the trails themselves - see www.abovetopsecret.com..., and I'm pretty sure Uncinus made at least 1 post noting hte physical differences between contrails, fuel dumps and otehr types of white trails.

So I'm wondering where YOU have been thesse last few days??!!



Not to mention I wouldn't be able to find any photos of those things that I could distinguish myself, because they look the exact same to me. So if anyone can distinguish them and find photos that show the differences, shouldn't that be you?


You could cut sections out of photos & present them - you're making the claim - again why should I have to provide you with the evidence you need to support your claim?


I know it's a chemtrail meme to require everyone else to prove everything they say without actually providing any evidence to support ewhat is claimed - and since you are so hot on logic you will, of course, recognise the tactic as Argument from Ignorance



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
However words often exist before they are included in dictionaries, and have generally understood meanins BEFORE then too - that is how the meaning gets included in eth dictionary - it has been "generally agreed" or understod beforehand.


Why not, but it's not in the dictionary yet, and you are still arguing nothing but semantics here anyway.



And you would also have to include cloud-seeding, spraying crap to reflect sunlight, and anything else they spray into the atmosphere. My ultimate point being -- you can't distinguish many/most of these chemicals just by looking at the white trail itself.


You keep saying that and keep failing to put a couple of pictures side by side in order to prove the point.......


Because if I did, you would claim it would just be two contrails.


So why don't YOU compare them? You're the one who wants to definitely say "oh that isn't a chemtrail, that's a contrail!" every time someone posts a photo, aren't you?





Like I said - you stated CATEGORICALLY that we would not be able to spot the difference between the proposed SRM techniques and contrails


Sorry but can you provide the exact quote?


www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

combined - the first yuo say we can't differentiate between 1 white cloud and another, the 2nd says we can't differentiate between SRM's & contrails.


Right, you wouldn't know whether it was a chemtrail or not because you automatically assume anything white following a plane is a contrail. That is what I have been saying through this whole thread.



If I did so then it was a mistake, because my point is that you wouldn't know what the difference between them would be.


It's a mistake saying we wouldn't know the differnce because we wouldn't know the difference??


Yes....

You claim chemtrails don't even exist, yet at the same time you think you know what they would look like so that you could tell them apart from contrails.

Make sense? No, it doesn't.


The question remains then - how do you know the trails from those SRM's would be white?


This is what I never claimed to know. I am specifically saying you wouldn't know, and neither would I!

Though after walking my dog this evening I'm changing my mind about that. I saw a jet flying high over head trailing one of these so-called "contrails," and then suddenly it started fading immediately behind the plane. That's when I realized that what was fading quickly was the real contrail, and all the crap it had just left dumped behind it, was not. There is no way the atmosphere conditions would change that suddenly and dramatically. The two trails didn't even look the same. I don't expect to convince you with that but it's only proof to me that this issue is not as hard or complicated as you try to make it.



Yes I did make observatinos about the trails themselves - see www.abovetopsecret.com..., and I'm pretty sure Uncinus made at least 1 post noting hte physical differences between contrails, fuel dumps and otehr types of white trails.

So I'm wondering where YOU have been thesse last few days??!!


I didn't say you didn't, I said you had to use the planes themselves in every case to make the distinction. Again, you can't just look at a white trail behind a plane and tell what it is, chemically, with your eyeballs.



Not to mention I wouldn't be able to find any photos of those things that I could distinguish myself, because they look the exact same to me. So if anyone can distinguish them and find photos that show the differences, shouldn't that be you?


You could cut sections out of photos & present them - you're making the claim - again why should I have to provide you with the evidence you need to support your claim?


Please re-read my post. I would just be repeating myself to have to respond to this nonsense again. If you can't even find examples of photos to illustrate the difference between a real contrail and anything else, then my point is already proven. I can't tell the difference to even post any to begin with, which also demonstrates my point. Neither of us can tell the difference. If you can, you could easily show it. That's not my job because that's not my claim. My claim is proven by your inability to tell them apart even to post pictures of two different things.


I know it's a chemtrail meme to require everyone else to prove everything they say without actually providing any evidence to support ewhat is claimed - and since you are so hot on logic you will, of course, recognise the tactic as Argument from Ignorance


It's hardly argument from ignorance when you are proving my point perfectly in your inability to show any distinction yourself, which is exactly what I am telling you: you can't tell the difference between a "contrail" and a "chemtrail."



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   

you can't tell the difference between a "contrail" and a "chemtrail."


To tell the difference you would have to assume both exist.

Contrail evidence: Almost a century of scientific data.

Chemtrail evidence: Yet to be seen.

Now if I wanted to follow the same logic, I could offer an equally relevant sentence: "You can't tell the difference between a "horse" and "unicorn."

After all, we don't know that unicorns do not exist, we only have the fact zero evidence has been shown to suggest their existence. So i could very well say that if you were to say a horse is a horse, that you might not know what you are talking about. I mean, unicorns haven't been "disproved," right? And it could look exactly like a horse, because who is to say that unicorns look as they are typically depicted.

However, my argument wouldn't mean anything, let alone that I was right.

And to expand a bit further, it would be perfectly logical to say that unicorns do not exist due to the absolute lack of verifiable evidence. It would be perfectly illogical to assume the horse is actually a unicorn because I have not "proven" it is actually a horse.




edit on 1-6-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You claim chemtrails don't even exist, yet at the same time you think you know what they would look like so that you could tell them apart from contrails.

Make sense? No, it doesn't.


It makes perfect sense to me that if somethign does not exist it cannot possibly look like anything else at all.

Sorry you have problems with it.



I know it's a chemtrail meme to require everyone else to prove everything they say without actually providing any evidence to support ewhat is claimed - and since you are so hot on logic you will, of course, recognise the tactic as Argument from Ignorance


It's hardly argument from ignorance when you are proving my point perfectly in your inability to show any distinction yourself, which is exactly what I am telling you: you can't tell the difference between a "contrail" and a "chemtrail."


According to your idea I also cannot differentiate between chemtrails and the flying spaghetti monster, because I don't know what it looks like either - indeed, as mentioned above I also cannot differentiate between contrails and unicorns, or any other thing that does not exist.

If you REALLY think your position has any merit then I truly, truly feel sorry for you


But my actual impression is that you have just invested so much into this stupid idea that you are unable to back out now, and are trolling in order to try to save some sort of face.

Let me assure you that it is far too late to save face on this subject, and a little honesty would be a much better policy.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GringoViejo

you can't tell the difference between a "contrail" and a "chemtrail."


To tell the difference you would have to assume both exist.


That's right.

And it's not like you have proven they don't exist, so there is no reason the assumption can't be made. That's not to say it's the same as proof. You have no more proof that they don't exist, than I have proof that they do. That's where it stands.


That, and you apparently feel like you have to try to spin this until it looks like you're right anyway, which is nonsense rhetoric.
edit on 1-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
It makes perfect sense to me that if somethign does not exist it cannot possibly look like anything else at all.


Except you haven't proven them not to exist. You've assumed it, based on no evidence.



According to your idea I also cannot differentiate between chemtrails and the flying spaghetti monster, because I don't know what it looks like either


Right, but reducing this point to mockery or insults doesn't help your case my friend.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GringoViejo

you can't tell the difference between a "contrail" and a "chemtrail."


To tell the difference you would have to assume both exist.


That's right.

And it's not like you have proven they don't exist, so there is no reason the assumption can't be made.


And there's that Argument from Ignorance again - isn't it time to get a new record?? This one's scratched to death!



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
And there's that Argument from Ignorance again - isn't it time to get a new record??


Sigh....

I am not making a positive claim. I am not saying I have proof. Therefore it is not an argument from ignorance.


Are you saying you have proof that they don't exist?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
It makes perfect sense to me that if somethign does not exist it cannot possibly look like anything else at all.


Except you haven't proven them not to exist. You've assumed it, based on no evidence.


And again - Argument from Ignorance




According to your idea I also cannot differentiate between chemtrails and the flying spaghetti monster, because I don't know what it looks like either


Right, but reducing this point to mockery or insults doesn't help your case my friend.


it is the same logic, and the position is already absurd so I haven't actually reduced to anything.

I don't know you so it is presumptuous of you to address me as your friend.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
And again - Argument from Ignorance


No, because once again... I am not making a positive claim.

I admit not having proof of them, I am simply pointing out that neither do you have proof that they don't exist.

I'm sorry this is so confusing to you but I can only point it out again and again every time you make the mistake.



it is the same logic, and the position is already absurd so I haven't actually reduced to anything.


You clearly are trying to mock me, though your point remains valid even though you are intentionally being ridiculous with it.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
And there's that Argument from Ignorance again - isn't it time to get a new record??


Sigh....

I am not making a positive claim.


Liar - you are claiming we cannot differentiate a chemtrails from a contrail, therefore you aer implicitly claiming chemntrails exist.


I am not saying I have proof. Therefore it is not an argument from ignorance.


You are making a claim - it does not require proof to make a claim - if you had proof it would not be an argument from ignorance because it would not be a fallacy in the first place!!



Are you saying you have proof that they don't exist?


Yep - and I've posted it for you before.


edit on 1-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join