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

Originally posted by firepilot

You ask for chemical tests but then unless the particles can all be traced directly back to coming out of an airplane (impossible),

So if its impossible, then why do all the chemmies claim it is possible, and that it comes from airplanes?

I've never seen anyone other than a "debunker" claim that testing should be done to establish what is being dumped. Of course when you are presented with water testing, obviously, you just start grasping for whatever excuses are most convenient and moving the goal posts.

reply to post by bsbray11

You ask for chemical tests but then unless the particles can all be traced directly back to coming out of an airplane (impossible), it won't ever be good enough anyway, so you may as well safe yourself the trouble and not even ask because you will never be satisfied.

It's true that contaminants can't be traced to "chemtrails" but if a wide spectrum test were shown it would show that the contamination was due to dirt. That's probably why the "chemtrail" enthusiasts don't show us those tests.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by firepilot

You ask for chemical tests but then unless the particles can all be traced directly back to coming out of an airplane (impossible),

So if its impossible, then why do all the chemmies claim it is possible, and that it comes from airplanes?

I've never seen anyone other than a "debunker" claim that testing should be done to establish what is being dumped. Of course when you are presented with water testing, obviously, you just start grasping for whatever excuses are most convenient and moving the goal posts.

Wait, isnt it the chemmies who test water bowls and claim that is proof it comes from high flying airplanes?

Originally posted by Phage
It's true that contaminants can't be traced to "chemtrails" but if a wide spectrum test were shown it would show that the contamination was due to dirt. That's probably why the "chemtrail" enthusiasts don't show us those tests.

So you admit that you haven't seen the tests, but you're already making excuses for what you don't even know if they show or not. Gotcha.

You're just a knee-jerking machine, aren't you Phage?

Originally posted by firepilot
Wait, isnt it the chemmies who test water bowls and claim that is proof it comes from high flying airplanes?

Not that I've seen, but then again you are talking about a large group of very different people. Just like you "debunkers."

Not that I've seen, but then again you are talking about a large group of very different people. Just like you "debunkers."

Uh huh, is this just like when you claimed no knowledge of chemmies posting videos of contrails, yet just before you posted that, you had starred and flagged someone for doing exactly that?

You seem to have little knowledge of "chemtrails" and you want everyone else to rehash it all for you. If you seriously act like you have not seen chemmies posting about testing water bowls and ponds, then you have not been reading anything but your own posts. Just like apparently when you said you had no idea who Ted Gunderson was, but you were posting in a thread in support of him

Guess what, if you think Ft Sill and Lincoln Nebraska have chemplanes, then you post how it could be true. We are all tired of posting over and over and over and over why its not.

reply to post by bsbray11

So you admit that you haven't seen the tests, but you're already making excuses for what you don't even know if they show or not. Gotcha

Have you seen these tests? Can you provide a link? If not, why not?
It would be much better "evidence" that something unusual was going on than anything else we've seen.
You got nothing.

Originally posted by firepilot
Uh huh, is this just like when you claimed no knowledge of chemmies posting videos of contrails, yet just before you posted that, you had starred and flagged someone for doing exactly that?

Prove that you're looking at normal contrails.

You seem to have little knowledge of "chemtrails" and you want everyone else to rehash it all for you.

I'll let you in on a secret. Really I only ask you rhetorically because I know you're talking out of your rear and haven't actually debunked anything. When I ask you what you've "debunked" and you just respond with finger flapping like this, it only reinforces what I already knew.

Originally posted by Phage

So you admit that you haven't seen the tests, but you're already making excuses for what you don't even know if they show or not. Gotcha

Have you seen these tests? Can you provide a link? If not, why not?

I never claimed to.

I was only pointing out that even without seeing the tests yourself, you're already making excuses.

Again, proof could be shoved in your face and you wouldn't accept it. You could go up on the planes yourself, and still wouldn't accept it.

Originally posted by bsbray11


I never claimed to.

I was only pointing out that even without seeing the tests yourself, you're already making excuses.

Again, proof could be shoved in your face and you wouldn't accept it. You could go up on the planes yourself, and still wouldn't accept it.

How about this??
THERE IS NO PROOF. Could go up on what planes, chemmies cant even decide what planes yet? How can you claim that debunkers could go on the planes and it would not be good enough, when the chemtrail cult can not even find the planes first of all to photograph, or that even exist.

Maybe when you and the other members of your chemtrial cult actually find the airplanes, its an actual topic,. Until then, its pointless speculating.

So go find some chemplanes and get back to us.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Prove that you're looking at normal contrails.

They look and behave like contrails and are produced by aircraft engines exactly the same as contrails under conditions in which contrails would be expected.

If you see a large grey animal with a long trunk, tusks and big ears in the African savannah and a elephant expert says it's an elephant, why are you so sure it's a polar bear?

You prove it's not what the experts who study it claim it is.

reply to post by firepilot


If you want me to prove anything, why don't you stop being a hypocrite?

You made the claim above that someone posted contrails and claimed they were chemtrails. I told you to prove they were contrails then. I notice you ignored that. Not surprising.

Originally posted by Essan
You prove it's not what the experts who study it claim it is.

"Firepilot" is no expert, and it was his claim.

Why do you guys think you can make all the claims you want without having to prove a damned thing, but the burden of proof is always automatically on whoever you're arguing with, no matter who is actually making the claim?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Essan
You prove it's not what the experts who study it claim it is.

"Firepilot" is no expert, and it was his claim.

Why do you guys think you can make all the claims you want without having to prove a damned thing, but the burden of proof is always automatically on whoever you're arguing with, no matter who is actually making the claim?

I have already proven it, but you do not read anything but your own messages. Maybe if you actually read things, instead of just blindly reposting the rantings of your chemtrail cult, you would learn a few things.

Besides, shouldtn you be checking on details before you post them, rather than just blinding posting every chemtrial video you can, and expecting others to do the work?

Tell us, what did you find out about Ted Gunderson, Ft Sill and Lincoln. Just admit it, you did nothing to look up any of it?

Originally posted by bsbray11

"Firepilot" is no expert, and it was his claim.

I'm not talking about him. I'm talking about thousands of atmospheric scientists and others, who study how and why contrails form and the environmental consequences of them.

But if you're so sure the big grey animal with a trunk, tusks and big ears you see in the African savannah is a polar bear, then show us your evidence that it cannot be an elephant.

Edit: btw as far as contrails are concerned, before making claims that display ignorance of the subject, try learning what contrails are, what they look like and how and why they form the way they do. This is a good starting point:

www.airspacemag.com...

reply to post by bsbray11

Again, proof could be shoved in your face and you wouldn't accept it. You could go up on the planes yourself, and still wouldn't accept it.

Try me.
What proof?
What planes?

Originally posted by Phage
Try me.
What proof?
What planes?

Well this just came to my attention: www.monkeypuppet.net...

I'll look over it more tomorrow, but I thought I'd give you a heads up too to see if you can't come up with a better excuse than a bunch of semantics.

reply to post by bsbray11


Nice find. Shows that the authorities are concerned about the effect of industrial emissions in the lower atmosphere and studying them.

Not sure what it has to do with cloud seeding or contrails though?

reply to post by Essan


They are definitely concerned with something.

You know what one of their "solutions" is to combat what they assert is man-made global warming from greenhouse gases? Injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere (obviously with aircraft), to, in their words, mimic volcano eruptions which similarly cool the atmosphere. This all in an effort to manipulate climate. The other thread/PDF I posted even mentions explicitly impacts on international relations this technology could have, which immediately brings to mind military applications.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Essan

 

They are definitely concerned with something.

You know what one of their "solutions" is to combat what they assert is man-made global warming from greenhouse gases? Injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere (obviously with aircraft), to, in their words, mimic volcano eruptions which similarly cool the atmosphere.

Why obviously aircraft? Volcanos don't use aircraft.

Artillery, and tethered balloons with pipes from the ground have also been proposed.

Do you think that they should NOT be discussing this?

Originally posted by Uncinus
Why obviously aircraft? Volcanos don't use aircraft.

Because they use volcanoes as an example, they aren't actually talking about artificially causing volcanoes to erupt.

They talk about "injecting" aerosols, into the stratosphere. You can't easily inject an aerosol into the stratosphere from the back of a truck. So the non-brain-dead method for accomplishing this would obviously be to.... any ideas yet?.... use an aircraft.

Do you think that they should NOT be discussing this?

Exactly. I don't think the government should be proclaiming the need to inject ANYTHING into the stratosphere because they have no business manipulating natural climate patterns. What they do with pollution is enough. Even cloud-seeding is an extremely controversial practice, even in countries where the government does it openly like Russia or China.