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: 30
79
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Well since I live within 30-35 miles of 3 airports and have watched planes take off and land and pass overhead to other countries as a boy from the late 60's onwards lets look at some facts.

Near the airports as planes come in NO contrails -why simple temp,pressure,altitude,humidity

Planes flying overhead with CONTRAILS -why simple temp,pressure,altitude,humidity

With the era of cheap flights many many more planes in the air, 50,000-70,000+ flights a day world wide ,later today I will be making my own contrail as I fly out on a trip to europe thats if the temp,pressure,humidity and altitude are right.

The real problem with chemtrail believers is every trail is mission to dump some kind of poison or to blot out Nibiru (love that one
) its a bit like how man created god yes we created god ,to explain things we cant understand.

Do YOU honestly think thats an efficient way to deliver anything and be HONEST!

The strange thing is I bet a lot who post about chemtrails on here DONT fly very often.
edit on 3-6-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Some people cant see the forest from the trees.

So stuck in their idealized notions of what they perceive to be the truth as the universal truth, instead of even trying to listen to someone from outside the "conspiracy defined chemical trail" bubble.

And yet, they are willing to give a conspiracy so much leeway as to usurp the extremely vague term of Chemical Trails.. Some apparently cant see past their own notions of the conspiracy. The only way to falsify the unfalsifiable (that which has no evidence, period) is to define the term in a falsifiable way. Its not entirely honest, but at the same time, its probably not entirely mindful and intentional. This operation happens on either the yea or nay response.

Really interesting to see how many people's thoughts are limited and controlled by the initial proposition of "conspiracy based chemtrails." When in reality, chemical trails is too vague of a term to associate with solely with a conspiracy (especially when people think that conspiracy is bunk). So, what do you do? Well, you present a scenario where the typical yea/nay response will lead both sides to face each other instead of focusing on actual problems. So, frequently, it is the debunking mindset that is based in a scientific attitude. Meaning, one can present the information in such a way that many with that mindset will automatically take up the "nay" side without actual further exploration. That is, as long as we have conditioned the term of "science," to be sourced solely in a controllable manner (make sure the common response is controllable through the authorities to which the side you are focusing on respects the most highly). The "yea" side will frequently use their own non-scientific based conclusions. Those who do not fall victim to such coercing are never big enough in number to matter. Neither side will usually see the programming that goes on behind it all, as they will rarely see past their own chosen cultural condition based solely off of a specific conspiracy. Both sides will see "CONSPIRACY" in big letters when they see the word "chemtrail."

Both sides are equally controlled and groomed to do so. The funny part is when a joke is made about how vague the term chemical trails really is as some type of defense. Though all that was actually shown is how effective and impactful the conspiracy has been in conditioning people to believe that chemical trails exist only within the definition of this conspiracy.

They are perpetuating the exact conspiracy they claim to try to "debunk." All the source information, explanations, and definitions will be remarkably similar. The only difference will the the tone and spirit in which the information is delivered. But.. the same information is still delivered, allowing the yea/nay response to grow. When i say i believe in chemical trails, i mean just that, chemical trails. Such things can be truncated as well, evidenced by contrails themselves! Only to those who can not see beyond the conspiracy will that appear to have meaning beyond simply being trails of chemicals, which condensation trails themselves most certainly are.

Seriously, someone try it it. Come up with some conspiracy, apply as vague of a word as possible to be the "glue" that holds it all together, and watch the sparks fly. There will never be enough people to see beyond the game to matter. Then watch as both sides slowly twist and turn the words definition to be able to take up the yea or nay stance based on the presented information. The duality is self-sustaining. Also watch how both sides allow that vague term to be usurped completely by the made-up conspiracy itself, because that is how the participants will have subconsciously defined and limited it, regardless of which "side" they are on.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


I'd be happy to drop the word "chemtrail" from the discussion entirely, as it has so many different meanings.

People should focus instead on actual points of proposed evidence, and see if they indicate something out of the ordinary. Because until such evidence comes forward and withstands peer review (and by which I mean a mixed lay audience such as is on ATS) then it's basically a pointless theory - simple speculation without real basis.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
With the era of cheap flights many many more planes in the air, 50,000-70,000+ flights a day world wide ,later today I will be making my own contrail as I fly out on a trip to europe thats if the temp,pressure,humidity and altitude are right.


And out of all those flights, you aren't saying that you know that none of them are military/commercial/private flights equipped to dump whatever, right?

Even if there is no hard proof to everyone's satisfaction that this is happening, it's no more ruled out than there actually being what physicists call a "unified field" or hundreds of other theories that thousands of people take seriously. That's the only point I've been trying to make through this whole thread, and you can see how many people trolling refuse to even admit that much.


The real problem with chemtrail believers is every trail is mission to dump some kind of poison


That's the real problem, huh? Well who on this thread has asserted that even once?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by wmd_2008
With the era of cheap flights many many more planes in the air, 50,000-70,000+ flights a day world wide ,later today I will be making my own contrail as I fly out on a trip to europe thats if the temp,pressure,humidity and altitude are right.


And out of all those flights, you aren't saying that you know that none of them are military/commercial/private flights equipped to dump whatever, right?


Really? The same "you can't prove it isn't so" argument?

Your point is meaningless, and you know it.

Something might be happening that leaves evidence, but can't be sure that we don't know if there a way we can tell if we can know if it is leaving evidence, or not. Hence we must keep an open mind.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by sinohptik
 


I'd be happy to drop the word "chemtrail" from the discussion entirely, as it has so many different meanings.


Why does it need to be dropped? The only thing that needs to happen is an understanding from the debunkers and believers alike that they are both equally wrapped up in the same scenario and that the term is absolutely not exclusive to the conspiracy.


People should focus instead on actual points of proposed evidence, and see if they indicate something out of the ordinary. Because until such evidence comes forward and withstands peer review (and by which I mean a mixed lay audience such as is on ATS then it's basically a pointless theory - simple speculation without real basis.


Ok, im not really sure how to say this any differently, but you are still seeing the term of chemical trails through conspiracy-shaded glasses. i am going to do my absolute best to try to communicate the point trying to be put forth here, because, just like my first post, it is going over peoples heads. The term was around before any such theories were created, and was used before the conspiracy was put forward. You are just as coerced and influenced in your line of thinking about chemical trails as the "believers." Think of a dot, that will represent the source of the knowledge, which in this specific case, is "conspiracy defined chemical trails." Both sides obviously agree what they "are," just different conclusions are made on whether or not they exist, so they use the same dot or source information. So, out of this dot come two arrows. How can one make a proper, unbiased, conclusion with no actual data? So, all of your words on something "definitely not existing" are subject to the same rules you put forth for others. Your idea that they "do not exist" is, as you say, simple speculation without real basis. We have no data, and even when we do, it is still susceptible to human bias innately. But when we have zero evidence (as you say), to make any conclusion, or arrow movement only has a place for lawyers. It also, by the very nature of the claim, proposes that one is omniscient. i am guessing you are not actually making that claim though, right?

In this, defining Chemical Trails properly, instead of though a conspiracy, it should be blatantly obvious that there is proof for them, even in the jokes that were made about it! Condensation trails themselves are chemical trails, as long as we are being scientific, and not wrapped up in the conspiracy. There is nothing to "prove" there, we know, scientifically, it is a trail of chemicals. There is no reason to bring a conspiracy theory into it. Even less so when one thinks it is nonsense.

Now, on the other hand, we have the "conspiracy theory defined chemical trails," which seem to be pretty much the only definition the debunkers in this thread know and accept despite there being no evidence for them. There is no evidence, therefore, there can be no conclusions. Using logic/reasoning in to make absolute conclusions in cases with no evidence is something courts do, labs and scientists do not. Courts and lawyers talk in absolutes, scientists talk in possibilities. And there is a reason science is done that way, because science by its very nature admits lack of knowledge. i will not personally allow a conspiracy i find.. lacking, to redefine words that have been around for longer than the conspiracy itself. Doing so would be giving credibility and weight to the theory, regardless of if it is from the yea or nay position.

Listen, i know none of this is probably getting through the conspiracy filter, and the stars you receive emphasize that. But maybe someone reading this, will understand how they have been just as manipulated as the people they think they "crusade" against. Its a bigger topic than the conspiracy you put forward, but judging from the post history of many participants in this thread, that might be difficult to understand (thats not meant to be an insult). And i cant think of any more ways to say it at this point!

i said earlier, if you went up to someone who had no knowledge of this conspiracy and asked them to define chemical trails and chemtrails, how would they respond? Well, they would talk about chemicals.. and trails of chemicals. What is the likelihood of them saying they "dont exist," with no knowledge of a conspiracy? Slim to none. The only ones who will likely ever say they "absolutely does not exist" will only be those who are knowledgeable about the presented context of "conspiracy defined chemical trails," and are looking at it from a "nay" standpoint.

As far as your claim about some internet peer review, ill look into it when there is evidence that you are able to change your mind, or even try to understand what others are saying beyond the conspiracy you are so wrapped up. Until then, all current evidence certainly says otherwise, and we have no contradicting evidence to prove such things can happen. So, unless i see something out of the ordinary, i am just going to assume you can not change your mind


All the best anyway, i guess keep on keepin on.. My suggestion would be to apply your mind to learning about actual scientific exploration and method, instead of some obsessive argument about a baseless conspiracy.
i truly mean that in the nicest and most encouraging way. If you feel there is no evidence of chemical trails whatsoever, then why are you wasting so much time making baseless absolute statements against other baseless absolute statements? And if you dont see how you are doing that, look closer (really). Remember, i do not feel "conspiracy defined chemtrails" are likely at all, but with zero evidence, all that we know are possibilities. There is no way i could make an honest, scientific, statement about something i dont have any evidence for, regardless of specific position on the topic.

Neither side sees the role they play for each other (a tail to be chased), while the rabbit is getting away...
edit on 3-6-2011 by sinohptik because: runaway bracket



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


Okay, let's drop the "conspiracy" tag too.

Let's talk about contrails? Crop spraying? Pollution? What?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
Let's talk about contrails? Crop spraying? Pollution? What?




Millions were in germ war tests

Much of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials


The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.

A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.

Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told.

While details of some secret trials have emerged in recent years, the 60-page report reveals new information about more than 100 covert experiments.

The report reveals that military personnel were briefed to tell any 'inquisitive inquirer' the trials were part of research projects into weather and air pollution.


www.guardian.co.uk...



What do you know, not only an admission of dumping hazardous chemicals over the public, but even admitting to lying about it at the time.


Of course things are different now, no one lies anymore and everything is okay, chemtrails don't exist anymore.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik
If you feel there is no evidence of chemical trails whatsoever, then why are you wasting so much time making baseless absolute statements against other baseless absolute statements? And if you dont see how you are doing that, look closer (really).


I don't think I am. I'm saying that the evidence does not support the theory.

I'd go further and say "there's no evidence", as shorthand for "there's no evidence that has stood up to scrutiny". Sure there's evidence like the idiotic KC-10 video, but that's not evidence if it's wrong.

I'm all about the evidence. Because the proposed evidence is where the bunk is, and I'm a debunker. When I see proposed evidence I put it up on ContrailScience.com, and I explain why it is wrong. Then I ask people to point out my mistakes. They NEVER do.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Something that happened decades ago, and there's no evidence that it looked like persistent contrails?

You think that's evidence of what, exactly?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
I don't think I am. I'm saying that the evidence does not support the theory.


No, you're not.

If your only argument was that there is no proof of ongoing chemtrails, then the discussion would have been over by now.

Instead, you keep wanting to assert that they don't exist just because you haven't seen any evidence of them. And you have been shown that this is a fallacy countless times, at which point you start posting all kinds of opinionated garbage about how you don't need evidence to automatically assume something.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
Something that happened decades ago, and there's no evidence that it looked like persistent contrails?

You think that's evidence of what, exactly?


It's evidence of chemtrails.



Not just evidence, but an admission from a government that they actually were doing this stuff, and were lying about it.

What evidence do you have that they're telling the truth now?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
I don't think I am. I'm saying that the evidence does not support the theory.


No, you're not.

If your only argument was that there is no proof of ongoing chemtrails, then the discussion would have been over by now.

Instead, you keep wanting to assert that they don't exist just because you haven't seen any evidence of them.


So you are arguing about what you think I want to assert, not what I actually asserted?




And you have been shown that this is a fallacy countless times, at which point you start posting all kinds of opinionated garbage about how you don't need evidence to automatically assume something.


Right, like Irving Copi's opinionated garbage in Introduction to Logic:


In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.


It's called Evidence of Absence. It's not a fallacy. The lack of evidence for chemtrails IS evidence that either chemtrails don't exist, or are exactly like contrails.

Do you actually have a point to make, other than "you can't prove they don't exist"?
edit on 3-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
It's called Evidence of Absence. It's not a fallacy.


You are pretending that you have examined everything, and can positively claim that there are no chemtrails.

This is either ignorance or lying.


Are you still trying to come up with an excuse for this or what?:



Millions were in germ war tests

Much of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials


The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.

A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.

Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told.

While details of some secret trials have emerged in recent years, the 60-page report reveals new information about more than 100 covert experiments.

The report reveals that military personnel were briefed to tell any 'inquisitive inquirer' the trials were part of research projects into weather and air pollution.


www.guardian.co.uk...


There it is, straight from the UK government. They dumped toxic crap on those unknowing people for decades, exactly as chemtrail theories postulate.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
It's called Evidence of Absence. It's not a fallacy.


You are pretending that you have examined everything, and can positively claim that there are no chemtrails.

This is either ignorance or lying.


Really? Where did I say that? I think you must be mistaking be for someone else.



There it is, straight from the UK government. They dumped toxic crap on those unknowing people for decades, exactly as chemtrail theories postulate.


Er no, they did it 100 times over decades, so maybe once every couple of months, only a handful of which were from the air, and those were only from a few hundred feet up. At the time they did not think it was toxic, and they still pretty much don't. Entirely unlike the chemtrail theory, which has thousands of actually poisonous, high altitude trails every day, and nothing on the ground.

edit on 3-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
It's called Evidence of Absence. It's not a fallacy.


You are pretending that you have examined everything, and can positively claim that there are no chemtrails.

This is either ignorance or lying.


vs.


Originally posted by bsbray11
There is simply no evidence that unicorns exist.


So you pretend you have looked everywhere, and can positively claim no unicorns exist? Does this make you ignorant, or a liar?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I have no camera to shoot this.
It's now 2.50pm in Ventura County, (N. of Los Angeles) where in the skies above my head, Chemtrails are currently being made in a systematic criss-cross formation, outside of any normal flight path in the area.

I urge anyone in the vicinity to try to take a video.....NOW!
I see the plane doing this now....back and forth.

There's a thin mist of overall cloud, as the result of earlier chemtrails this morning that got spread out into a misty white sky.

To add, the atmosphere is very disturbed, the wind is up on an otherwise sunny day, temperature is dropping and the sun has a wide ring around it, at the rim of which is a slight rainbow effect. (I can only perceive this with sunglasses on).

C'mon someone, let's get this on video.
I know Uncinus is in Los Angeles, but I doubt if he will provide the film!!!



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starling

To add, the atmosphere is very disturbed, the wind is up on an otherwise sunny day, temperature is dropping and the sun has a wide ring around it, at the rim of which is a slight rainbow effect. (I can only perceive this with sunglasses on).

C'mon someone, let's get this on video.
I know Uncinus is in Los Angeles, but I doubt if he will provide the film!!!


About 3:05 today.



The ring is a halo. It's caused by ice crystals high in the sky.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
And here's today's satellite photo, showing the large weather system to the west (on the left of the photo), and all the contrails in the bands of moisture surrounding it.

rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov...




posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by Starling

To add, the atmosphere is very disturbed, the wind is up on an otherwise sunny day, temperature is dropping and the sun has a wide ring around it, at the rim of which is a slight rainbow effect. (I can only perceive this with sunglasses on).

C'mon someone, let's get this on video.
I know Uncinus is in Los Angeles, but I doubt if he will provide the film!!!


About 3:05 today.



The ring is a halo. It's caused by ice crystals high in the sky.



Thanks for the quick response...from the one I didn't expect it!

OK, I got the reason for the sun-ring, (why are there ice crystals on such a sunny May day?)

Now, what about that plane making its way back and forth across the sky? Has it lost its way?

Why don't you do time lapse shots?
Or is that like asking the fox to kindly guard the chickens?!!)




top topics



 
79
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join