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: 26
79
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   


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.


They don't have to exist for you to hypothetically not be able to tell the difference. That is the point.

Since you haven't proved they don't exist, the hypothetical is not invalid.




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


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


Nope, now it's my turn to call you a liar.
edit on 1-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by B.Morrison


there's still life in this topic is all I'm getting at.

-Bob


only to someone looking for a fight. Don't be that guy.


because looking for a fight is the only reason I would want to know the risks of silver iodine being absorbed by my tomatoes via rain? (for e.g..)

I enjoy studying & practicing Aikido applied to conversation - I'm rarely ever "that guy".

Peace,
-Bob
edit on 2/6/11 by B.Morrison because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


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.


They don't have to exist for you to hypothetically not be able to tell the difference. That is the point.

Since you haven't proved they don't exist, the hypothetical is not invalid.




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


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


Nope, now it's my turn to call you a liar.
edit on 1-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)


26 pages and still standing your ground without denying any of the factual information provided

pedantic or not, your points are valid ones.

peace,
-Bob



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by B.Morrison
 

Yep. Still ignoring logic and scientific method.

Contrails are known to exist and demonstrate all the characteristics of "chemtrails".
"Chemtrails" have not been shown to exist.
There is no way to visually determine that contrails are not "chemtrails".

There seems to be flaw in the flow.


The hypothesis on which this claim rests is that "Chemtrails" exist. "Chemtrails" do not exist is the null hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is not provable. In order to prove it every contrail ever made would have to be tested and shown to not contain materials which cannot be attributed to the combustion of jet fuel. Evidence can only support the null or reject it. If the null is not rejected the hypothesis cannot be claimed to be valid.

Subjective observations are not valid data and they do not reject the null hypothesis.
References to past activities do not reject the null.
References to proposed programs do not reject the null.
No data has been presented which rejects the null. The null hypothesis still stands and therefore the hypothesis is not shown to be valid.

The hypothesis is provable. Provide a direct sample of a "chemtrail" and show that it contains materials which cannot be attributed to the combustion of jet fuel. Provide evidence which rejects the null, only then can a valid claim can be made that "chemtrails" exist. But the claim that "chemtrails" are indistinquishable from contrails would still require validation.

The logic and research have a ways to go.

www.experiment-resources.com...[

edit on 6/2/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
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.



that IMHO is the most ridiculous and condescending definition of a word & that 'dictionary' does not in any way count.

I think you could define anything in the way it was done above & it would make the thing seem ludicrous.
for e.g......

Spherical earth -

Theory believed by "non-spiritual" people that the earth is round. This by its nature alleges that historical record of trade ships falling off the ends of the earth is fallacious & insinuates a conspiracy of fraud among the church/state controlled industry.

Non-Spiritual guy: Look! That spice ship didn't fall off the face of the planet, it was a false flag operation by the church & state to steal the spices!! the world is round! there is no end of the earth!

Normal guy: get away from me you crazy heathen!!

peace,
-Bob
edit on 2/6/11 by B.Morrison because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by B.Morrison
 

Yep. Still ignoring logic and scientific method.

Contrails are known to exist and demonstrate all the characteristics of "chemtrails".
"Chemtrails" have not been shown to exist.
There is no way to visually determine that contrails are not "chemtrails".

There seems to be flaw in the flow.


The hypothesis on which this claim rests is that "Chemtrails" exist. "Chemtrails" do not exist is the null hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is not provable. In order to prove it every contrail ever made would have to be tested and shown to not contain materials which cannot be attributed to the combustion of jet fuel. Evidence can only support the null or reject it. If the null is not rejected the hypothesis cannot be claimed to be valid.

Subjective observations are not valid data and they do not reject the null hypothesis.
References to past activities do not reject the null.
References to proposed programs do not reject the null.
No data has been presented which rejects the null. The null hypothesis still stands and therefore the hypothesis is not shown to be valid.

The hypothesis is provable. Provide a direct sample of a "chemtrail" and show that it contains materials which cannot be attributed to the combustion of jet fuel. Provide evidence which rejects the null, only then can a valid claim can be made that "chemtrails" exist. But the claim that "chemtrails" are indistinquishable from contrails would still require validation.

The logic and research have a ways to go.

www.experiment-resources.com...[

edit on 6/2/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


This post gets a star for being completely correct.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Yep. Still ignoring logic and scientific method.

Contrails are known to exist and demonstrate all the characteristics of "chemtrails".
"Chemtrails" have not been shown to exist.
There is no way to visually determine that contrails are not "chemtrails".


And this is one reason why you can't actually prove that chemtrails don't exist, or even that a given photo does not contain chemtrails.

And so much more convenient for you, too, because even if someone does show you a chemtrail, you will inevitably call it a "contrail" anyway.


I saw one go overhead today when I was out walking the dog, and it stopped spraying right above me and from that point on it was a normal contrail. Meaning, the real contrail dissipated behind the plane in a matter of 3 or 4 seconds. But whatever it was dumping did not dissipate, and just lingered. It was a sudden cut-off and obviously not a matter of a change in atmospheric conditions. It didn't even look the same coming out of the plane.


I look forward to the day when history reflects back on these discussions with knowledge of what is really taking place today. You have certainly defined your role in it all through all your zealous posts here.
edit on 2-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
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.



Originally posted by bsbray11

I saw one go overhead today when I was out walking the dog, and it stopped spraying right above me and from that point on it was a normal contrail. Meaning, the real contrail dissipated behind the plane in a matter of 3 or 4 seconds. But whatever it was dumping did not dissipate, and just lingered. It was a sudden cut-off and obviously not a matter of a change in atmospheric conditions. It didn't even look the same coming out of the plane.


I guess if the whole point of this thread is that you couldn't tell the difference with your eyes you have just rendered the whole thread worthless.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SirCoxone
I guess if the whole point of this thread is that you couldn't tell the difference with your eyes you have just rendered the whole thread worthless.


Right, because today I could tell the difference just by looking at them.

I even thought about using my crappy camera phone even though I knew the quality would be bad. And then I had to laugh, because I realized there is nothing I could possibly post here that would ever convince you lot anyway.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Yep. Still ignoring logic and scientific method.
not that I saw but ok...


Contrails are known to exist and demonstrate all the characteristics of "chemtrails".
"Chemtrails" have not been shown to exist.
There is no way to visually determine that contrails are not "chemtrails".

There seems to be flaw in the flow.


Isn't that exactly what he's saying? that it can't be proven either way?

..Though I'm more interested in determining the risks of what IS known just personally.


The hypothesis on which this claim rests is that "Chemtrails" exist. "Chemtrails" do not exist is the null hypothesis.


so if one refuses to accept the possibility of clandestine & harmful/toxic 'chemtrails' one cannot participate in the arguement of whether they can be visually identified? ...yes that makes sense.

There is one point regarding hypothesis in general I'd like to state which is -
If a hypothetical had to be provable in order to be discussed we wouldn't have philosophy.

...but I do see your point in this specific context.


The null hypothesis is not provable. In order to prove it every contrail ever made would have to be tested and shown to not contain materials which cannot be attributed to the combustion of jet fuel. Evidence can only support the null or reject it. If the null is not rejected the hypothesis cannot be claimed to be valid.

Subjective observations are not valid data and they do not reject the null hypothesis.
References to past activities do not reject the null.
References to proposed programs do not reject the null.
No data has been presented which rejects the null.
The null hypothesis still stands and therefore the hypothesis is not shown to be valid.

The hypothesis is provable. Provide a direct sample of a "chemtrail" and show that it contains materials which cannot be attributed to the combustion of jet fuel. Provide evidence which rejects the null, only then can a valid claim can be made that "chemtrails" exist. But the claim that "chemtrails" are indistinquishable from contrails would still require validation.


I see your points & I like to think that what you just stated is the purpose of this corner of the forums - to attempt to find such evidence.


The logic and research have a ways to go.


well perhaps but to be honest you didn't point out anything just then that I hadn't already considered. Now that you've quite capably identified the problems at hand why don't you make the next contribution something to help remedy it?

wouldn't it be cool if you happened to be the very member who found that evidence and posted a thread about it both proving their existence once and for all AND justifying the forum itself? just a thought


Peace,
-Bob
edit on 2/6/11 by B.Morrison because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by B.Morrison
 

I've examined the data presented and have found none which rejects the null hypothesis.
Can you suggest something which does? Maybe you have something new. It's the responsibility of those who support the hypothesis to provide evidence which rejects the null.
edit on 6/2/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
I guess if the whole point of this thread is that you couldn't tell the difference with your eyes you have just rendered the whole thread worthless.


Right, because today I could tell the difference just by looking at them.

I even thought about using my crappy camera phone even though I knew the quality would be bad. And then I had to laugh, because I realized there is nothing I could possibly post here that would ever convince you lot anyway.


???

but you've just spent 26 pages arguing that no one can know what those trails are by sight alone.

Everyone except you that is I guess.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by SirCoxone
???

but you've just spent 26 pages arguing that no one can know what those trails are by sight alone.

Everyone except you that is I guess.


Right again... Because until today I actually believed that.

Silly me, I should have known better than to believe the lies being peddled here.

Oh well, I saw the difference first-hand today. If you watch carefully enough I'm sure you'll eventually notice the same thing too.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by B.Morrison
 

I've examined the data presented and have found none which rejects the null hypothesis.
Can you suggest something which does? Maybe you have something new. It's the responsibility of those who support the hypothesis to provide evidence which rejects the null.
edit on 6/2/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I see what you're saying again but feel you're barking up the wrong tree - I have no doubt in my mind that you have thoroughly researched this topic however I support the idea of 'getting to the truth of it' rather than whether its true or false.

I don't support the idea that chem trail are true but I wholeheartedly support the choice & commitment people make to find out for themselves, including discussing the ideas presented.

what has bothered me on this thread is how those who don't believe in another persons ideas will mock that person for even discussing the ideas, when its that very act of discussion which will ultimately inform that person of their mistakes. If the manner of 'shooting down' believers was different maybe more of them would be inclined to question their beliefs the way you want them too.

just a thought.

Peace,
-Bob
edit on 2/6/11 by B.Morrison because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
???

but you've just spent 26 pages arguing that no one can know what those trails are by sight alone.

Everyone except you that is I guess.


Right again... Because until today I actually believed that.

Silly me, I should have known better than to believe the lies being peddled here.

Oh well, I saw the difference first-hand today. If you watch carefully enough I'm sure you'll eventually notice the same thing too.


OK,

so because you saw a contrail change you now have proof they are spraying chemicals at high altitude.

I just want to be sure about this, so make sure you are certain of your answer.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SirCoxone
OK,

so because you saw a contrail change you now have proof they are spraying chemicals at high altitude.


I am not going to offer it to you as proof since you obviously weren't there and have no way of verifying it, but I'm not going to pretend I didn't see it either.

You can believe what you want, I really don't care.

You still have no way of proving any given trail behind a plane is not a chemtrail just by looking at it and giving some argument-from-ignorance response of "contrails are already proven but chemtrails aren't."



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by B.Morrison
 

The mocking occurs in both camps.

For my part, I get frustrated when the rules of science and logic are ignored in the discussion of a topic in which they play the major role (or should). If I take a mocking tone, I plead letting that frustration get the better of me.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
OK,

so because you saw a contrail change you now have proof they are spraying chemicals at high altitude.


I am not going to offer it to you as proof since you obviously weren't there and have no way of verifying it, but I'm not going to pretend I didn't see it either.

You can believe what you want, I really don't care.

You still have no way of proving any given trail behind a plane is not a chemtrail just by looking at it and giving some argument-from-ignorance response of "contrails are already proven but chemtrails aren't."



Hey, I have no reason to think you are a liar. I believe you saw it.

What I am getting at is that seeing that happen is proof that they are spraying chemicals at high altitudes right?

and no you are right of course I can't prove any trail behind a plane is not a chemtrail without flying up and analysing it. Just like you can't prove the planes aren't all holograms. You can't ask someone to prove a negative, come on you are brighter than that.

The point is that no one needs to prove contrails exist, we know they do and we have the science to prove it, we can express their creation in a mathematical formula that is provable in test conditions. Chemtrails are a theory by a small group of people who need to offer evidence they exist.

You have just tried to offer some. Well done.

I say again, I believe you saw what you saw, do you assert that is proof that they are spraying chemicals at high altitude from large jets?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by B.Morrison
 

The mocking occurs in both camps.
this is true...


For my part, I get frustrated when the rules of science and logic are ignored in the discussion of a topic in which they play the major role (or should). If I take a mocking tone, I plead letting that frustration get the better of me.

I can see how you would find that frustrating & I can't say I haven't done the same things myself. Also while my comments were meant in the general sense they were about the side of the negative & it is as you say in both camps.

I'm no saint by any standard & often forget my own advice... but I also like to repeat my idealism's often when I have the opportunity


It's a shame that this thread did not bear the golden fruit but in many ways I should probably be glad about that, a world without chem trails would surely be preferable.

Peace,
-Bob
edit on 2/6/11 by B.Morrison because: phrasing



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by SirCoxone
You can't ask someone to prove a negative, come on you are brighter than that.


I wouldn't ask someone to prove a negative, unless they started making the assertion themselves, but you haven't done that though I don't seriously believe all planes are holograms or that that idea has even close to the same likelihood.


I say again, I believe you saw what you saw, do you assert that is proof that they are spraying chemicals at high altitude from large jets?


Again, it's proof enough to me that this was not just a sudden change in atmospheric conditions because it was all clear blue sky with similar cloud formations scattered in all directions, no wind to be seen (clouds all relatively still), etc.

I'm not going to argue that it should be proof for anyone else so for the purposes of this thread, what I say today is really irrelevant.



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join