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

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


I'll try and give it a shot...See House Resolution 2977, a bill introduced in the United States' Congress. Due to my cold you'll have to go here for the rest: www.healthfreedom.info...

reply to post by relocator

Your link didn't work. Did you mean this?
2977

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
So, how come you keep avoiding your incorrect claim that cloud seeding is top secret in the States?

I didn't say it was topic secret, I said it wasn't done out in the open. You claim it's done in West Virginia, well take that as a case in point. I know for a fact the meteorologists on TV there don't include that sort of thing in their weather forecasts, unlike, say, the Chinese government, which announces when it does those things.

reply to post by bsbray11


Oh man, shut down on the radar claim. How much information are you going to misrepresent?

P.S. I notice you totally avoided Unicinus' post showing you were wrong (again). Care to comment on that?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Chaff isn't particles. Particles wouldn't work if they're too small.

Are you just arguing semantics for the hell of it? From seeing many of your posts, one might definitely be lead to believe that..

Chaff may not "be" particles, but it most certainly is made of them. Just like contrails may not "be" chemtrails as defined by your conspiracy, but it most certainly is a trail of chemicals in the most literal of senses. i would ask you to prove that chaff is not made of particles, and also prove that condensation trails are not made up of chemicals.

Now, beyond all of that we have evidence that other types of chemicals have been dispersed into our atmosphere as well, right? No one denies cloud seeding, crop dusting, chemical experimentation (though not enough to cause damage!), etc. However, once it comes to the "CONSPIRACY," all of a sudden the idea becomes outlandish. i am just trying to make sense of such a viewpoint, as i can not find any rational reconciliation.

Honestly, im starting to think the "debunkers" are the real conspiracy theorists, where words that have been around since before jet engines are now being exclusively defined by some conspiracy that rests entirely on that very type of engine. "Debunking" is not seen to me as a activity, it is seen as a mindset. One that will approach literally everything beyond ones realm of current understanding as something that needs to be "debunked." No evidence will ever suffice, period, because of the mindset of the individual. The evidence is never perceived as a possible "mind-changer," but rather, is looked at as "how can it be debunked?" Not necessarily a "bad" thing in and of itself, but when we limit our own definitions to the very topic we are debunking, it is essentially shooting oneself in the foot. We can easily debunk anything once we make the terms personally subjective in a way that supports our present bias. In fact, that is the very basis behind debate as well as lawyers and courts in general. However, once science begins claiming absolutes instead of possibilities, it renders itself meaningless by the nature of that very claim. Though, obviously, i do expect more courtroom antics than actual scientific pursuit on this site!

i just cant understand how a conspiracy theory that debunkers find fraudulent is willingly given the authority to define terms that were around before its inception. Beyond that, using those very definitions to "debunk" the initial notion itself! It is really just the strangest thing to watch.. Could you perhaps explain your thought processes on this? Because simply put, the actions of the debunkers make zero sense to me (about as much as conspiracy defined chemical trails ), though im trying and most certainly curious. i think coming to a better understanding would help everyone on the topic (any topic, honestly), though obviously, everyone must be willing and open to it... i mean, you do know there are more than two sides to any one topic, right? Of course, that would make it significantly harder to "debunk." And of course, by saying anything like "well, you view it differently than the rest," we show our true colors quite clearly. Not so much interested in anything but argument against a viewpoint that is just as subjectively biased as the other.

Oh well, figured id try in yet a different way. Though, i expect most to "debunk" and argue whatever i say, as that is simply the nature of the mindset. In the end, it is the perspective itself that is of interest to me, so perhaps it is just off topic, but i dont see it more clearly than on a thread such as this. Minds were already made up before they went into this thread, right? So, attempting to insinuate that the "proper evidence" would sway ones opinion is disingenuous at best, especially considering the definitions of the terms used beyond the niche conspiracy. From where i see, both "sides" are just as enraptured in the conspiracy as the other.

edit: huh, interesting how as i was typing that, a strikingly similar conversation was happening in the thread.. its a conspiracy!

reply to post by Phage


Yes. Thank you....
Phage

reply to post by bsbray11

China publicized their cloud seeding efforts for the Olympics.
Do you have evidence of it being broadcast on the nightly Beijing weather forecast?

Originally posted by adeclerk
Oh man, shut down on the radar claim.

Not hardly.

P.S. I notice you totally avoided Unicinus' post showing you were wrong (again). Care to comment on that?

Sure. Read his post again please. He is speculating. You really want to go in for another round of circle jerking just to prove the point that what he's claiming is no more or less proven than what my source was claiming? Really?

Originally posted by Phage
China publicized their cloud seeding efforts for the Olympics.
Do you have evidence of it being broadcast on the nightly Beijing weather forecast?

I don't have evidence that China manipulates their weather on a daily basis in the first place. When was the last time the US government made an announcement that they were going to manipulate weather to make it sunny for a public event, ever?

reply to post by bsbray11


Your source is claiming chemstuff. His explains a weather radar setting that is well documented. Need I say more?

P.S. Star for the phrase circle jerking, it's in my top 5 phrases used in high school.

reply to post by bsbray11


You claimed it didnt happen openly in the states, and now you are changing the parameters of your definition.

Why not just admit you were wrong?

Originally posted by bsbray11

It seems like we all have our own definitions. "Chemtrails" isn't in the dictionary, you know?

Why do you lie, it has already been pointed out to you HERE, that the definition of "Chemtrails" IS in dictionaries .

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by bsbray11

 

You claimed it didnt happen openly in the states, and now you are changing the parameters of your definition.

Why not just admit you were wrong?

If you have noticed, he has been changing the parameters to make him right in a certain aspect for the last 38 pages. Well, the last 6 years, really.

Originally posted by sinohptik

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Chaff isn't particles. Particles wouldn't work if they're too small.

Are you just arguing semantics for the hell of it? From seeing many of your posts, one might definitely be lead to believe that..

Funny, since the rest of your post is an exercise in semantics:

Chaff may not "be" particles, but it most certainly is made of them. Just like contrails may not "be" chemtrails as defined by your conspiracy, but it most certainly is a trail of chemicals in the most literal of senses. i would ask you to prove that chaff is not made of particles, and also prove that condensation trails are not made up of chemicals.

Now, beyond all of that we have evidence that other types of chemicals have been dispersed into our atmosphere as well, right? No one denies cloud seeding, crop dusting, chemical experimentation (though not enough to cause damage!), etc. However, once it comes to the "CONSPIRACY," all of a sudden the idea becomes outlandish. i am just trying to make sense of such a viewpoint, as i can not find any rational reconciliation.

Honestly, im starting to think the "debunkers" are the real conspiracy theorists, where words that have been around since before jet engines are now being exclusively defined by some conspiracy that rests entirely on that very type of engine. "Debunking" is not seen to me as a activity, it is seen as a mindset. One that will approach literally everything beyond ones realm of current understanding as something that needs to be "debunked." No evidence will ever suffice, period, because of the mindset of the individual. The evidence is never perceived as a possible "mind-changer," but rather, is looked at as "how can it be debunked?" Not necessarily a "bad" thing in and of itself, but when we limit our own definitions to the very topic we are debunking, it is essentially shooting oneself in the foot. We can easily debunk anything once we make the terms personally subjective in a way that supports our present bias. In fact, that is the very basis behind debate as well as lawyers and courts in general. However, once science begins claiming absolutes instead of possibilities, it renders itself meaningless by the nature of that very claim. Though, obviously, i do expect more courtroom antics than actual scientific pursuit on this site!

i just cant understand how a conspiracy theory that debunkers find fraudulent is willingly given the authority to define terms that were around before its inception. Beyond that, using those very definitions to "debunk" the initial notion itself! It is really just the strangest thing to watch.. Could you perhaps explain your thought processes on this? Because simply put, the actions of the debunkers make zero sense to me (about as much as conspiracy defined chemical trails

), though im trying and most certainly curious. i think coming to a better understanding would help everyone on the topic (any topic, honestly), though obviously, everyone must be willing and open to it... i mean, you do know there are more than two sides to any one topic, right? Of course, that would make it significantly harder to "debunk." And of course, by saying anything like "well, you view it differently than the rest," we show our true colors quite clearly. Not so much interested in anything but argument against a viewpoint that is just as subjectively biased as the other.

Oh well, figured id try in yet a different way. Though, i expect most to "debunk" and argue whatever i say, as that is simply the nature of the mindset. In the end, it is the perspective itself that is of interest to me, so perhaps it is just off topic, but i dont see it more clearly than on a thread such as this. Minds were already made up before they went into this thread, right? So, attempting to insinuate that the "proper evidence" would sway ones opinion is disingenuous at best, especially considering the definitions of the terms used beyond the niche conspiracy. From where i see, both "sides" are just as enraptured in the conspiracy as the other.

edit: huh, interesting how as i was typing that, a strikingly similar conversation was happening in the thread.. its a conspiracy!

edit on 11-6-2011 by sinohptik because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by adeclerk
Your source is claiming chemstuff. His explains a weather radar setting that is well documented. Need I say more?

Yeah, so well documented that he had to start speculating as to what was causing that pattern on the radar.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
You claimed it didnt happen openly in the states, and now you are changing the parameters of your definition.

No, you just misinterpreted me from the start. Go back and follow along with the earlier posts and see for yourself.

reply to post by sinohptik

Are you just arguing semantics for the hell of it? From seeing many of your posts, one might definitely be lead to believe that..

Chaff may not "be" particles, but it most certainly is made of them.

No, it isn't. It's fibers (used to be pieces of foil) which are large enough to produce a very strong radar return. It's not semantics, it's a fact.

However, once it comes to the "CONSPIRACY," all of a sudden the idea becomes outlandish. i am just trying to make sense of such a viewpoint, as i can not find any rational reconciliation.

The concern has nothing to do with it being a conspiracy. It has to do with taking a logical and balanced look at the evidence. Some people claim that there is a connection between solar activity and earthquakes. There is no conspiracy there, nor is there evidence to support it. I "debunk" that subject as well.

Honestly, im starting to think the "debunkers" are the real conspiracy theorists, where words that have been around since before jet engines are now being exclusively defined by some conspiracy that rests entirely on that very type of engine.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The persistent contrails seen today are the same as the persistent contrails seen almost 100 years ago.

No evidence will ever suffice, period, because of the mindset of the individual.

Incorrect. Evidence convincing evidence can be furnished. A single, properly taken sample from a "chemtrail" would do it. You would think than in the more than 10 years that "chemtrails" have been researched, there would be some real evidence. Instead all there are are poorly conducted tests, subjective observations, and finger pointing at past actions and proposals for future activities. None of which can be used to logically or scientifically support the claim of a global scheme to do...something...by spraying....something.

The mindset. I can't speak for others my mine is one of curiosity. At first I was curious about the claim and researched it. When I realized that there really was nothing behind it I became curious about how people can continue to insist that "chemtrails" (as the term is usually used, not as recently redefined in orde to fuzzy up the discussion) exist. Call it a study in human nature.

reply to post by bsbray11

When was the last time the US government made an announcement that they were going to manipulate weather to make it sunny for a public event, ever?

The US government doesn't engage in much weather modification.

Originally posted by RobotCat
Why do you lie, it has already been pointed out to you HERE, that the definition of "Chemtrails" IS in dictionaries .

I had in mind traditional dictionaries, not online "Skeptic's dictionary" and all of that trash. I mean Merriam-Webster, etc.

Originally posted by adeclerk
If you have noticed, he has been changing the parameters to make him right in a certain aspect for the last 38 pages. Well, the last 6 years, really.

Of course, because about a month ago I had never even had a discourse with you on ATS. You're obviously very intellectually honest yourself, aren't you?

Originally posted by Phage
The US government doesn't engage in much weather modification.

Argument from authority...



Troll on people.... Still waiting for some substance to any of your "arguments."

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Funny, since the rest of your post is an exercise in semantics:

When did i say i had a problem with it in the first place?

i am trying to learn more about the perspective. Just because i ask questions doesnt mean i dont agree with the overall premise. Or, did you assume, incorrectly, that i feel conspiracy defined chemtrails are something that is happening?

i am trying to find common ground so that actual exploration of the topic can take place, and it seems that the terms that are used have been specifically catered to the topic at hand while disregarding any other definitions past, present, or future.

So, do you actually have something to add? Or are you just interesting in argument? Its fine if its the latter, but we should be honest with ourselves and others if that is the case.

Originally posted by bsbray11




Troll on people.... Still waiting for some substance to any of your "arguments."

edit on 11-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

Then perhaps you should re-read your thread, as I've noticed several reasoned, researched, referenced posts refuting your ridiculous reasoning that you have rather ignored.