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: 34
79
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by bsbray11
The word "chemtrail" does not translate literally into German.


But the word "chaff" does.


Yet chaff does not modify the weather like the program is actually suggesting, does it?

They are talking about something different. You are just unable to admit the military could be doing things that you don't know about. Apparently you have to know everything, and nothing else can exist that you don't already know about.




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.


I admitted to making assumptions and then admitted that I had used the wrong word - sorry for not being perfect.

If you were as intellectually honest as I am supposedly dishonest you would have corrected me at the time - since I had clearly made a deductive conclusion going so far as to list my premises and anyone with your self-proclaimed grasp of logic would ahve recognised it as such

So an accusation from you that I am intellectually dishonest is just laughable - thaks for the grin



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Here's something else for you guys to scramble to try and "debunk," even though you are still struggling with the German news program (I know, I know, I take no sympathy on you):




I guess this guy is just a liar too. Not much else you can argue at this point, really.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I admitted to making assumptions and then admitted that I had used the wrong word - sorry for not being perfect.


Assumption was the right word. You only changed it once you realized the full extent of what you were saying, and then of course it had to be any word but "assumption," even though you are obviously making assumptions that the military would not do such a thing.



If you were as intellectually honest as I am supposedly dishonest you would have corrected me at the time


I did, the problem is just that you don't actually pay attention to what I post because you're too busy being right.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by bsbray11
The word "chemtrail" does not translate literally into German.


But the word "chaff" does.


Yet chaff does not modify the weather like the program is actually suggesting, does it?

They are talking about something different. You are just unable to admit the military could be doing things that you don't know about. Apparently you have to know everything, and nothing else can exist that you don't already know about.


So what is the evidence that thsi thing exists that he doesn't know about?

You're pretty good on identifying things you think people don't know about - why don't you get into education and show people all the evidence for this stuff so we can all be better informed??


And of course no-one will be surprised that you're already back to arguing from ignorance
less than a page after beign thrashed mercilessly for doing it last time!!


Deny ignorance indeed!



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Isn't that clip from witwats?

I may be wrong, but if it is (or not, regardless) you may want to listen to the ATS live that featured Michael Murphy, the creator of the holy grail of "chemtrail" docu's, "What in the World are they Spraying?".



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Yet chaff does not modify the weather like the program is actually suggesting, does it?


No, it doesn't.
But what it does do is confuse the meteorologists who use weather radar. That is what is being discussed.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I admitted to making assumptions and then admitted that I had used the wrong word - sorry for not being perfect.


Assumption was the right word.


It is not the right word for a set of premises that lead to a conclusion at all.




You only changed it once you realized the full extent of what you were saying, and then of course it had to be any word but "assumption," even though you are obviously making assumptions that the military would not do such a thing.


According to you an assumption is not a set of premises that leads to a conclusion - I gave you a set of premises that leads to a conclusion - that makes it an inference - it is the same one I posted in response to you a week or more ago so it's not something I changed my mind on just 'cos we used a wrong word, and it is the right word because it fits what I did.

sorry for brining facts to the discussion yet again.

But hey - we're used to your sophistry


If you were as intellectually honest as I am supposedly dishonest you would have corrected me at the time


I did,


Still with the sophisms




the problem is just that you don't actually pay attention to what I post because you're too busy being right.


Hey - being right all the time jsut makes it easy to show how you are wrong again



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



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by bsbray11
The word "chemtrail" does not translate literally into German.


But the word "chaff" does.


Yet chaff does not modify the weather like the program is actually suggesting, does it?

They are talking about something different. You are just unable to admit the military could be doing things that you don't know about. Apparently you have to know everything, and nothing else can exist that you don't already know about.


NO, the program does not say anything about modifying the weather. AT ALL! You have been told that it does not , but by spreading wrong information like you are doing, you are misrepresenting the truth and misleading others.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
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.


Chaff interfering with weather radar. The entire clip has been mistranslated. For example at 1:18 the following quote and translation is shown:



The german:

Die Aufzeichnungen belegen, dass dabei sehr geringe Mengen von Düppeln ausgebracht werden


is deliberately mistranslated as "the registers report emissions of chemtrails at low altitudes", when it's actually says:


the reports show that very small quantities of chaff were used


It's an obvious hoax that was debunked years ago.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Here's something else for you guys to scramble to try and "debunk," even though you are still struggling with the German news program (I know, I know, I take no sympathy on you):




I guess this guy is just a liar too. Not much else you can argue at this point, really.


What is this, whack-a-bunk?

What exactly do you find so convincing about that video? How about the Shasta snow sample at 6:35? Is that a good example? If that were shown to be bogus, then would that give you any pause? Or is there a better one in there?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Why are you still posting the WITWATS bull that has been debunked, again and again and again. I guess you don't read?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
And why do they not only ignore the debunking, but they actualy will defend, tooth and nail, the people who did the lying? is there a single case on ATS of chemmies who will admit to getting mad about being lied to?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   

What is this, whack-a-bunk?

What exactly do you find so convincing about that video? How about the Shasta snow sample at 6:35? Is that a good example? If that were shown to be bogus, then would that give you any pause? Or is there a better one in there?


You have the data he was referring to, and are able to refute it, off hand?


Originally posted by adeclerk
Why are you still posting the WITWATS bull that has been debunked, again and again and again. I guess you don't read?


You've never debunked it to me.



Originally posted by firepilot
And why do they not only ignore the debunking, but they actualy will defend, tooth and nail, the people who did the lying? is there a single case on ATS of chemmies who will admit to getting mad about being lied to?


I'm not defending anyone who is lying.

edit on 9-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I'm not defending anyone who is lying.

edit on 9-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)


They why do you post their lies, and continually defend them?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
Why are you still posting the WITWATS bull that has been debunked, again and again and again. I guess you don't read?


You've never debunked it to me.


you could use your clearly improving 'net search ability to figure it out for yourself......try www.contrailscience.com - there's a link of the left of the page specifically to WITWATS

Or try the sistersite www.metabunk.com - there's no specific thread there, but there are a lot of articles in hte chemtrail forum, and perhaps the debunking forum, dealing at great depth with some of the claims made in the movie by various people.
edit on 9-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Here's another study to debunk while you're at it:




Lots of interesting information there too, huh?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
you could use your clearly improving 'net search ability to figure it out for yourself......try www.contrailscience.com - there's a link of the left of the page specifically to WITWATS

Or try the sistersite www.metabunk.com - there's no specific thread there, but there are a lot of articles in hte chemtrail forum, and perhaps the debunking forum, dealing at great depth with some of the claims made in the movie by various people.


Come on, you're getting lazy man. You don't want to call the guy a liar himself so you direct me to other websites to do your dirty work?

A former FBI chief talking about what's going on:




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
you could use your clearly improving 'net search ability to figure it out for yourself......try www.contrailscience.com - there's a link of the left of the page specifically to WITWATS

Or try the sistersite www.metabunk.com - there's no specific thread there, but there are a lot of articles in hte chemtrail forum, and perhaps the debunking forum, dealing at great depth with some of the claims made in the movie by various people.


Come on, you're getting lazy man. You don't want to call the guy a liar himself so you direct me to other websites to do your dirty work?


Calling the guys on WITWATS liars? I don't actually know if they are liars or not - but I am pretty happy to say that the very little "factual" information they present is rubbish.

Why wouldn't I direct you to a website that presents eth evidence of that?



A former FBI chief talking about what's going on:


He's not a former FBI chief - and he's also well and truly debunked - heck the thread is even on the front page of this forum - www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
He's not a former FBI chief


Where do you get that from?

So now this is all lies too?: en.wikipedia.org...

Be sure to debunk the sources that confirm that Ted Gunderson is former FBI.



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join