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

Originally posted by adeclerk
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.

I'm sure you would, because you would just make more arguments from authority and all the other fallacies you love to make.

I'm comfortable in my belief that the government would have much more to hide than some meteorologists who accidentally stumbled upon the fact that "clouds" were appearing out of nowhere in the same places where these military planes were active and had admitted dumping materials.

Originally posted by bsbray11

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?

not at all- that is why I ask you to provide the evidence that you surely must have to support your case that they do exist.

You do have some evidence don't you?? Why aren't you just presenting it?

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.

Quite - and if you make a claim that someting DOES exist then the burden of proofis on you to supply the evidence to support your claim.

So - now that we have established that I don't have to prove they don't exist, and you do have to prove that they DO exist - why dont' you just get on with it and do so??

Of course you spend hours every day here pretending that you can, anyway.

I say they are not known to exist - something that you could easily refute with some decent evidence - evidence that you never provide.

Why don't you just show the evidence and prove me wrong??

reply to post by bsbray11


Hey, you finally admit it's a belief. I'll try not to insult your faith any further.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm comfortable in my belief that the government would have much more to hide than some meteorologists who accidentally stumbled upon the fact that "clouds" were appearing out of nowhere in the same places where these military planes were active and had admitted dumping materials.

so there is an admission somewhere that "this" is happening, and it can be tied to clouds appearing out of "nowhere"??

Well why didn't you say so - jeez - where is it??

(BTW where is it you think clouds usually appear from??)

reply to post by bsbray11

Chaff is not "chemtrails".
Chaff is not visible. Contrails are.
Chaff does appear on radar. Contrails do not.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Quite - and if you make a claim that someting DOES exist then the burden of proofis on you to supply the evidence to support your claim.

That's fine, but I'm not claiming to have proof. It's your constant insinuations that such a thing can't possibly exist that I take exception to.

Originally posted by adeclerk
Hey, you finally admit it's a belief. I'll try not to insult your faith any further.

As long as you realize you also have faith that this is not happening, we are not in disagreement.

Is that too much for you?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Quite - and if you make a claim that someting DOES exist then the burden of proofis on you to supply the evidence to support your claim.

That's fine, but I'm not claiming to have proof. It's your constant insinuations that such a thing can't possibly exist that I take exception to.

and yet in the last few posts I have explicitly said that such a thing COULD exist - so why lie about it?

Originally posted by Phage
Chaff is not "chemtrails".
Chaff is not visible. Contrails are.
Chaff does appear on radar. Contrails do not.

And dogs are not cats.
Trees are not the sky.
My car is not France.

Do you have any comment on the video I posted earlier?






Another hoax according to the foremost arguer-from-authority?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
and yet in the last few posts I have explicitly said that such a thing COULD exist - so why lie about it?

Because you have a tendency to go back on these candid admissions once you leave the nitty-gritty of these "discussions."

I'll see you in another thread later claiming with authority that so-and-so picture is definitely not a chemtrail, won't I?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Do you have any comment on the video I posted earlier?

Another hoax according to the foremost arguer-from-authority?

Yep, it is a hoax and you fell for it.

Nowhere in the actual German transcript, does it mention anything about about chemtrails and spraying. It was chemtrialers who provided a less than truthful translation, in order to promote chemtrails.

"Clouds" never appeared, because clouds do not show on radar. Chaff was causing returns on the weather radar, and he just had to be aware of that for weather reports. But no where in that, does it say that aircraft sprayed, or that aircraft caused weather.

Originally posted by firepilot
Nowhere in the actual German transcript, does it mention anything about about chemtrails and spraying.

The word "chemtrail" does not translate literally into German.

All you have to do is look at the pretty pictures to understand that yes, they are talking about exactly what the subtitles suggest.


How did I know you guys would just accuse it of being a hoax? Really, I must be a psychic huh?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
and yet in the last few posts I have explicitly said that such a thing COULD exist - so why lie about it?

Because you have a tendency to go back on these candid admissions once you leave the nitty-gritty of these "discussions."

When?

I'll see you in another thread later claiming with authority that so-and-so picture is definitely not a chemtrail, won't I?

Very possibly - in which case you have my permission to remind me of this (not that you are asking for or think you need it I am sure!), and also to take it as read that what I really mean is "it looks like a contrail to me" - which is actually what debunkers have almost always actually said - sure there's the occasional slip up tho.

the other thing theat debunkers "always" say is "how do you know it is a chemtrail?", to which one of hte stock answers is some variation on persistence, to which the stock reply is that contrails are known to persist for hours - again there may be some error in wording in any given answer - but you shuold still take it asread that thsi is what is meant - but feel free to remind the poster too of course.

Are we ever going to see you claim that failure to prove that chemtrails don't exist means that they do????

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by bsbray11
Because you have a tendency to go back on these candid admissions once you leave the nitty-gritty of these "discussions."

When?

Ahem:

I'll see you in another thread later claiming with authority that so-and-so picture is definitely not a chemtrail, won't I?

Very possibly

Enough said.

in which case you have my permission to remind me of this

And in which case you will inevitably give me the same argumentative run-around that you did here before finally admitting your position makes assumptions no less than my own does. The real difference is that you have a lot more trust in the government/military than I do.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by firepilot
Nowhere in the actual German transcript, does it mention anything about about chemtrails and spraying.

The word "chemtrail" does not translate literally into German.

All you have to do is look at the pretty pictures to understand that yes, they are talking about exactly what the subtitles suggest.

How did I know you guys would just accuse it of being a hoax? Really, I must be a psychic huh?

Maybe bacause you've seen it debunked before in places like contrailscience.com... and it's been discussed at length on here too -www.abovetopsecret.com...

Knowing that it has been debunked long ago it requires no great prescience to know it is going to be debunked (yawn) yet (yawn) again.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by bsbray11
Because you have a tendency to go back on these candid admissions once you leave the nitty-gritty of these "discussions."

When?

Ahem:

so when???

I'll see you in another thread later claiming with authority that so-and-so picture is definitely not a chemtrail, won't I?

Very possibly

Enough said.

Yeah - sorry for being human...

in which case you have my permission to remind me of this

And in which case you will inevitably give me the same argumentative run-around that you did here before finally admitting your position makes assumptions no less than my own does.

You really are useless aren't you.

I haven't made assumptions - I made an inference - and thank you again for ensuring I have teh correct terminology

The real difference is that you have a lot more trust in the government/military than I do.

The real differences are much more than that illusory one

1/ I require evidence before coming to conclusion and will only base the conclusion on the evidence
2/ i will provide you with the evidence I have and allow you to criticise it and will change my conclusions if my evidence is found wrong or incorrect or incomplete - you do not present any evidence whatsoever
3/ you indulge in sophistry such as your comments above that I have gone back (past tense) on my "admissions", and saying that I have made assumptions when I clearly made inferences (regardless of the words I used)
4/ you claim to be using logic and then base your position on an obvious logical fallacy
6/ you do not understand burden of proof
7/ you believe in the chemtrail cult

I'm sure there's more - but that's enough for me to make an inference about you

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by firepilot
Nowhere in the actual German transcript, does it mention anything about about chemtrails and spraying.

The word "chemtrail" does not translate literally into German.

All you have to do is look at the pretty pictures to understand that yes, they are talking about exactly what the subtitles suggest.

How did I know you guys would just accuse it of being a hoax? Really, I must be a psychic huh?

No, they are not talking about what the subtitles suggest. Some of you are such steadfast adherents to your chemtrail faith, that nothing can dissuade you. Actually in that case, its the chemtrail cult.

And no, you cant just tell from the video that it supports chemtrails because it does not. You fell for a hoax that chemtrails created, when they intentionally mistranslated it. Its like these people intentionally misled you,and not only do you not criticize them for it, you support them trying to mislead. Its like some of you want to be lied to by chemtrail promoters as long as it jives with your faith

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by firepilot

The word "chemtrail" does not translate literally into German.

But the word "chaff" does.
Did you hear the announcer in the introduction say the word "duppel"?

Both sides had developed independently what appeared to be the ultimate anti-radar weapon, but at first both were afraid to use it in case the other copied it! The Germans called theirs Dupple. The idea was incredibly simple, consisting of strips of silver paper in various lengths and widths, some of which were backed by brown paper to give strength. Because radar relies on echoes bouncing off the object it is scanning it could not distinguish between floating clouds of silver paper dropped by the aircraft and the aircraft themselves. German bombers had dropped the silver paper I found.

dentonlocalhistorysociety.co.uk...

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
You really are useless aren't you.

I haven't made assumptions - I made an inference - and thank you again for ensuring I have teh correct terminology

Already back-tracking again.

You are literally so intellectually dishonest that you can't even stick to your story for two posts in a row. You admit making assumptions and then as soon as it comes down to you not being able to prove to others that they aren't necessarily looking at contrails (because you can't really tell, you can only make various assumptions), then you immediately recant and start up a semantic word game.

Originally posted by firepilot
No, they are not talking about what the subtitles suggest. Some of you are such steadfast adherents to your chemtrail faith, that nothing can dissuade you. Actually in that case, its the chemtrail cult.

Save your cult rant and explain to me what they are "really" talking about through all of those images of meteorologists, computer screens of cloud formations, and imagery of military planes.