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: 32
79
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
post a picture of either a coyote or a domestic dog and ask me to tell you if it is a coyote or a dog and I will tell you which it is and offer solid evidence to support my claim.

See how it works?


So how would you tell a chemtrail apart from a normal contrail?

Give me specifics as to how you would be able to tell one white trail left by a plane, apart from another white trail left by a plane that has other chemicals in it.


Which chemicals? They have different visual and physical effects.

And isn't the chemtrail theory that the trails DO look different? Is this a different theory? Stealthtrails?




posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Are there any I missed??


Yeah, you missed everything that the US military or other groups are dumping covertly.

The stuff that you don't believe happens, because otherwise you would surely know about it by now?


Yeah I dont' believe it is happening - you are right.

So since I don't believe it is happening, and I am completely comfortable that anything that doesn't exist is automatically visually different to somethign that does exist, I can differentiate between contrails and covert dumps that aren't happening easily - one is visible, the other doesn't exist.

Are you going to prove to me that they do exist, and thus show how my conclusion is in error?


edit on 8-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Are you going to prove to me that they do exist, and thus show how my conclusion is in error?


I don't have to show how it's in error. You are obviously just making assumptions.


Originally posted by Uncinus
And isn't the chemtrail theory that the trails DO look different?


Yeah, to most people that post without multiple accounts. That's when you start making up excuses about atmospheric conditions being different and planes descending and ascending causing the "contrails" to look different.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Are you going to prove to me that they do exist, and thus show how my conclusion is in error?


I don't have to show how it's in error.


then I must be right



You are obviously just making assumptions.


Aren't you?

Let's see:

1/ you are assuming that there is some secret military programme spraying something
2/ you are assuming that whatever they spray is white
3/ you are assuming that whatever they spray behaves exactly the same way that contrails behave.

So what is yuor basis for those assumptions?

You know the basis for mine - I have posted them before

1/ Contrails are known to exist
2/ nothing else is known to exist that looks and behaves like contrails
3/ therefoer I am entitled to conclude that anything that looks and behaves liek a contrail is actually a contrail.

This is a logical argument and it is something that has been pointed out to you before as a valid one - where nothing else is known to exist that resembles teh subject, it is reasonable to concluse that whatever resembles teh subject actually is eth subject.

Now if you can show that there IS a secret military programme (or any other programme for that matter) that sprays something that is white and looks and behaves exactly like contrails I am obviously wrong.

if you cannot then you are just blowin' in the wind



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't have to show how it's in error.


then I must be right


No, you're just making assumptions, just like I said but you intentionally cut off because you're so "right."





You are obviously just making assumptions.


Aren't you?


Yes, I am. The difference between you and me is that I'm man enough to admit it. But you aren't.


Actually I'm close to taking that back because you just said this:


So what is yuor basis for those assumptions?

You know the basis for mine





posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11



You are obviously just making assumptions.


Aren't you?


Yes, I am. The difference between you and me is that I'm man enough to admit it. But you aren't.


Actually I'm close to taking that back because you just said this:


So what is yuor basis for those assumptions?

You know the basis for mine




Right - so mine are justified by logic and evidence - what are yours justified by? What is the basis of your assumption that there is a secret military programme spraying something that cannot be differentiated from contrails?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Right - so mine are justified by logic and evidence - what are yours justified by?


Your what are "justified by logic and evidence?" Assumptions? Sorry, but assumptions have nothing to do with either logic or evidence by definition.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

So how would you tell a chemtrail apart from a normal contrail?


Well first up you need to define what a chemtrail is and what, if any, properties it may have that would make it discernible from the ground.

As far as I'm aware, none of the things people say are contrails - cloud seeding, stratospheric dispersal of aerosols, chaff etc - would be visible from the ground.

So I think the main difference between a chemtrail and a contrail is that one is visible and the other is not. If you can see it, it's a contrail.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Apparently you are wrong - assumption are part of logic - en.wikipedia.org...

However since you seem so hung up on accurate definitions (curious, since you invented your own one for chemtrails that was b-s), I shall change my wording just for you


I have made an inference, justified by a set of premises.

Now - what is your justification for your idea (whether it be inference or assumption
) for there bing a secret military programme for spraying white trails of chemicals that look and behave exactly like contrails?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Apparently you are wrong - assumption are part of logic - en.wikipedia.org...


You linked to deduction, not to assumption.


Here's what you meant to link to:

en.wikipedia.org...


In logic an assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.



The kind of assuming you are doing has nothing to do with deduction. You haven't deduced that the military isn't covertly dumping chemicals for whatever reason. You just dismiss it out of hand because you have faith that otherwise is the case.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Apparently you are wrong - assumption are part of logic - en.wikipedia.org...


You linked to deduction, not to assumption.


Ahh...so you can find things that are not actually on the page when you decide to look for them - you are improving...albeit slowly and insufficiently


The kind of assuming you are doing has nothing to do with deduction.


Quite right - because as you have helped me realise, I am not assuming at all - I am infering - "he act of drawing a conclusion by deductive reasoning from given facts"



You haven't deduced that the military isn't covertly dumping chemicals for whatever reason.


You just can't leave that argument from ignorance alone, can you!!


But you see I'm not actually saying anything about military spraying at all ...


You just dismiss it out of hand because you have faith that otherwise is the case.


Nope - I'm saying there is no evidence for it - here's the given facts:

1/ Contrails exist (care to argue that?? Of course not - you're already on record as saying you know contrails do exist ...so no problemo there....)
2/ There is no verifiable evidence that anything other than contrails exists that looks and behaves like contrails. (Go on - argue why this is wrong ...we're all anxious to see you actually come up with evidence instead of sophistry...for example what is your line of reasoning for thinking that a military spray programme does exist?
)
3/ therefore it is reasonable to infer that anything that looks like a contrail is actually a contrail (and again - tell us how that doesn't derive from the known facts - adding new facts is a reasonable tactic BTW - just be sure to make sure that hey are actually facts will you, and not logical fallacies ?

There's a good chap..or chapess



edit on 9-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Yeah, to most people that post without multiple accounts.




And there it is!

Suppose you'll be asking how much we're getting paid soon.

Now that your "argument from ignorance" stance has fallen flat on it's face I guess the above ad hominem is the only thing you're left with.




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Ahh...so you can find things that are not actually on the page when you decide to look for them - you are improving...albeit slowly and insufficiently


A back-handed way of admitting that you intentionally linked to a page in an effort to manipulate the conversation.




The kind of assuming you are doing has nothing to do with deduction.


Quite right - because as you have helped me realise, I am not assuming at all - I am infering - "he act of drawing a conclusion by deductive reasoning from given facts"


You can shop for different words all day, you are still assuming the military isn't dumping anything covertly.




You haven't deduced that the military isn't covertly dumping chemicals for whatever reason.


You just can't leave that argument from ignorance alone, can you!!


The fact that you haven't deduced that the military isn't dumping anything covertly, is not an argument from ignorance. It's a fact. Based on .... the fact that you haven't actually deduced it.



But you see I'm not actually saying anything about military spraying at all ...


I know, you are intentionally insinuating it's not a possibility. Which is laughably naive.





You just dismiss it out of hand because you have faith that otherwise is the case.


Nope - I'm saying there is no evidence for it


No, that's not all you're saying, because you're trying to refute the idea outright. You can't refute something by posting evidence for something else instead. Both things can exist at the same time. You just keep ignoring that.



Originally posted by Goathief
And there it is!


Yes, there it is.


Now that your "argument from ignorance" stance has fallen flat on it's face I guess the above ad hominem is the only thing you're left with.


"Ad hominem" is an insult. You don't think it's possible to post with multiple accounts here?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
And isn't the chemtrail theory that the trails DO look different?


Yeah, to most people that post without multiple accounts. That's when you start making up excuses about atmospheric conditions being different and planes descending and ascending causing the "contrails" to look different.


Are you accusing me of having multiple accounts on ATS?
edit on 9-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Here's (another hoax
) video of the German media exposing their own military doing the same thing:




And what do you know, they look like normal "contrails," and then expand into normal-looking "cloud formations."



Caught in the act by German meteorologists.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


So meteorologists noticed persistent contrails and thought it was out of the ordinary? Not buying it, any meteorologist will explain what every debunker has already tried to explain to you.

The words would be lost on you though, since evidence doesn't seem to be too important in your book.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
So meteorologists noticed persistent contrails and thought it was out of the ordinary? Not buying it, any meteorologist will explain what every debunker has already tried to explain to you.


Not the meteorologists featured in that video, huh.


And that's not actually what they said but I'm not even going to resist your constant misrepresenting of the data laid before you. It's a habit only you have the power to break.

Your fraudulent argument from authority is noted though.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


The kind of assuming you are doing has nothing to do with deduction.


Quite right - because as you have helped me realise, I am not assuming at all - I am infering - "he act of drawing a conclusion by deductive reasoning from given facts"


You can shop for different words all day,


Yep - and thanks for helping me find the right one.



you are still assuming the military isn't dumping anything covertly.


I am saying that there is nothing known that looks and behaves like contrails that is not a contrail.

Are you saying this is incorrect?





You haven't deduced that the military isn't covertly dumping chemicals for whatever reason.


You just can't leave that argument from ignorance alone, can you!!


The fact that you haven't deduced that the military isn't dumping anything covertly, is not an argument from ignorance. It's a fact. Based on .... the fact that you haven't actually deduced it.


so what would I deduce it from? What is the evidence that would allow me to deduce it, because to deduce something there has to be a set of premises - some evidence - from whic the deduction can be made.



But you see I'm not actually saying anything about military spraying at all ...


I know, you are intentionally insinuating it's not a possibility. Which is laughably naive.


so you have some verifiable evidence that it is happening to show my naivety?



You just dismiss it out of hand because you have faith that otherwise is the case.


Nope - I'm saying there is no evidence for it


No, that's not all you're saying,


That is precisely what I am saying and have ben all along - despite you trying to put words into my mouth and tell me what it is I am saying!!




because you're trying to refute the idea outright. You can't refute something by posting evidence for something else instead.


I am not trying to refute the existence of military spray operations - I admit they COULD exist - but to deduce that they DO exist requires some evidence to support hte deduction, and so far you haven't provided any, let alone any verifiable or even credible evidence.

To say that I haven't proved they don't exist therefore they do exist is a basic logical fallacy balled an argument from ignorance - it is invalid, and itis often used by people who have no evidence and cannot prove their case.

They (you) use it to try to shift the burden of proof - if you allege that somethign does exist, then it is up to you to provide teh evidence to support your case - not up to me to prove your case wrong.

So where's the evidence of this thing that you say looks and behaves exactly like conrails, but is not contrails?

It is reasonable to infer that what looks like contrails is contrails, until you can show that something exists that looks and behaves exactly like contrails.


Both things can exist at the same time.


Indeed they could - and if there was some verifiable evidence that these mysterious military spray operations (or anything else that looks and behaves like a contrail for that matter) did exist then that would blow my conclusion right out of the water.

But your attempts at sophistry and repitition of a basic logical fallacy are not ever going to do so.


You just keep ignoring that.


nope - I admit that it is posible for them to exist.

And I admit that if you have some evidence that they exist then I am wrong.

So you do have some evidence to support your assertion that "both things exist" (whatever it is that is not contrails - a military spray operation)?

Why don't you just present the evidence?

Because otherwise my inference remains valid -

1/ contrails are known to exist
2/ there is nothing else known to exist that looks and behaves exactly like contrails,
3/ therefore it is reasonable to conclude that anything that looks and behaves like a contrail is a contrail

it's not a very long set of premises - if ther's something wrong with it then you should be able to show the error quite easily - but whining that something else COULD exist therefore the argument is wrong is sophistry - a specious argument used for deceiving someone.

So there's the challenge - do you have any actual evidence that these military sprays that look and behave exactly like contfrails exist? Or are you merely playing word games to decieve?





Originally posted by Goathief
And there it is!


Yes, there it is.



Now that your "argument from ignorance" stance has fallen flat on it's face I guess the above ad hominem is the only thing you're left with.


"Ad hominem" is an insult.


Not when it's true.



You don't think it's possible to post with multiple accounts here?


I have no idea - I guess it is but I've never tried. Have you?



edit on 9-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I am saying that there is nothing known that looks and behaves like contrails that is not a contrail.


Nothing else known to you.

Do you expect to have an encyclopedic knowledge of all covert military operations? Really?




The fact that you haven't deduced that the military isn't dumping anything covertly, is not an argument from ignorance. It's a fact. Based on .... the fact that you haven't actually deduced it.


so what would I deduce it from?


You can't, as far as I can tell. That's what's a bitch about trying to prove a negative, you know.

Of course you spend hours every day here pretending that you can, anyway.
edit on 9-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
So meteorologists noticed persistent contrails and thought it was out of the ordinary? Not buying it, any meteorologist will explain what every debunker has already tried to explain to you.


Not the meteorologists featured in that video, huh.


And that's not actually what they said but I'm not even going to resist your constant misrepresenting of the data laid before you. It's a habit only you have the power to break.

Your fraudulent argument from authority is noted though.

I'm unaware that you have actually laid out any data. But if you have any damning 'chemstuff' data, I'll be more than happy to help you analyze it.



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join