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

Originally posted by bsbray11

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

Argument from authority...

Perhaps you can show us a hint of the extent of US Government involvement in weather modification.

No, don't bother. It's just going to turn into another demand to prove a negative.

Originally posted by Phage
Perhaps you can show us a hint of the extent of US Government involvement in weather modification.

So now you're trying to put the burden of your claim "The US government doesn't engage in much weather modification" onto me?

Funny how you forget how burden of proof works whenever it inconveniences you.

reply to post by bsbray11

What a surprise. Oh wait, it's not a surprise.

No, don't bother. It's just going to turn into another demand to prove a negative.

Remember our little discussion about null hypotheses? It's really your job to show that the US Goverment is conducting weather modification operations.

Originally posted by Phage
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.

Do.. you even know what particles are? i do not consider wiki to be an academic source, but it has been used by debunkers in this thread, so whats good for the goose, right?

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.

wait, in 1911 there were contrails made by jet engines? Either way, you couldnt have missed the point anymore if you had tried!

recently redefined in orde to fuzzy up the discussion

"recently defined" huh? The terms in question were used before the conspiracy was presented. Though, perhaps the conspiracy is where you became familiar with such terms? If that is the case, then your perceived series of events would be accurate for you.

Call it a study in human nature.

i already do And i was correct in my last paragraph, as the "debunker" mind can not see anything other than what is to be "debunked!"

Remember, and i cant be any more clear about this, i do not believe in conspiracy defined chemical trails.

Honestly, the first time i saw someone saying "chemtrails and/or chemical trails" dont exist, i literally laughed out loud as i was not aware of the conspiracy. i had defined it through my education, profession, and science and not through any conspiracy.

i think you have shown that anything that is presented that isnt confined within your present terms is to be "debunked." As i have said, throughout the thread, i agree that conspiracy defined chemtrails are unlikely. However, i find the specification behind the terms used to be incredibly interesting, and something that i do not understand. Which is why i was asking. Still didnt get an answer on that though..

Anyway, it is pretty obvious an actual discussion is not going to happen (i will gladly be proven wrong though!) and it (the conspiracy) really just isnt something i care that much about as i do not feel it is occuring on meaningful scales, if at all (at least as those "wrapped up" in the conspiracy have defined it). You seemed one of the more likely candidates to understand the point though, but i was wrong on that. So, i guess there is a chance i am wrong about conspiracy defined chemtrails too..

Really, i think this thread has been an eye opener for more than just myself, and on many levels.

So, thank you

Originally posted by Phage
What a surprise. Oh wait, it's not a surprise.

No, don't bother. It's just going to turn into another demand to prove a negative.

It really shouldn't be a surprise since it's not my job to prove all the damned claims you make.


Phage: "Blah blah blah" (because he says so, you know?)

Me: "Argument from authority/prove it/etc."

Phage: "Prove me wrong!!"


I think most people here, outside of this clique of trolls, are beyond this level of "reasoning" Phage. And I nowhere claimed to have proof for you. That doesn't give you a blank check to talk out of your ass.

Remember our little discussion about null hypotheses? It's really your job to show that the US Goverment is conducting weather modification operations.

And now you're back-tracking on your claim I guess.

No evidence that the US isn't involved in large-scale weather manipulation, and yet you assert this is the case on faith/authority/fallacy flavor of the week.

reply to post by sinohptik

Do.. you even know what particles are? i do not consider wiki to be an academic source, but it has been used by debunkers in this thread, so whats good for the goose, right?

Sure, stars can be defined as particles (see your link) but in the context of the running conversation that is not the case. In context, particles are atmospheric aerosols.

wait, in 1911 there were contrails made by jet engines? Either way, you couldnt have missed the point anymore if you had tried!

No, in 1919 persistent contrails were observed by a German pilot. As I said, the contrails produced then are no different from the contrails produced by jets. They are composed of ice crystals. They persisted and spread.

"recently defined" huh? The terms in question were used before the conspiracy was presented.

Read again. I said recently redefined...by the OP. Perhaps you can provide a source for "chemtrails" being used to refer to persistent contrails (the usual definition) before the conspiracy was presented.

The OP is saying that cloud seeding occurs and calls them chemtrails. There is nothing there to "debunk" because he has chosen to redefine the term. He then proceeds to enter a circular argument saying that "chemtrails" are indistinguishable from contrails. He insists thats the case even after being shown that cloud seeding bears no resemblance in appearance or function to the persistent contrails which are called "chemtrails". He has no reason to think that "chemtrails" would have the same appearance as contrails and continues to insist they do.

Human nature. I'm fascinated by televangelists and their "evidence" too, and the people that believe them.

Originally posted by Phage
He then proceeds to enter a circular argument saying that "chemtrails" are indistinguishable from contrails. He insists thats the case even after being shown that cloud seeding bears no resemblance in appearance or function to the persistent contrails which are called "chemtrails".

This is somewhat correct, but be sure to also include the fact that you also deny the existence of any climate-manipulating chemtrails like the UK government is talking about in my other thread.

So since you deny these event exist, obviously you wouldn't (or shouldn't) know what they actually look like, so how do you know you'd even be able to tell them apart from contrails? You wouldn't, and that is my point.

This is not of concern to me because I am not actually claiming to have proof, or a definitive argument to settle the whole issue, period. But because you trolls like to come in so heavy-handed in your dismissals of everything, and pretending to have proof, of course it offends your egos that you can't claim definitive knowledge of something which you simultaneously claim has never even happened.

Human nature. I'm fascinated by televangelists and their "evidence" too, and the people that believe them.

Is that where you get all your tricks?

reply to post by bsbray11

But because you trolls like to come in so heavy-handed in your dismissals of everything, and pretending to have proof, of course it offends your egos that you can't claim definitive knowledge of something which you simultaneously claim has never even happened.

Have I ever claimed to have proof that "chemtrails" don't exist? Has anyone here? Can you refresh my memory? There's no need to get personal and claim you know what offends me (or to cry "troll!"). I do have proof that contrails behave in exactly the manner that they always have.

Is that where you get all your tricks?

Tricks? I use logic. They don't.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by sinohptik
In context, particles are atmospheric aerosols.

Nice try usurping yet another general term for your specific conspiracy crusade Perhaps you should have said atmospheric aerosols instead of particle? If we wanted to get to where i was thinking about it, particles are frequently referred to as describing many of the small microlevel constituents that make up matter as we know it, and that would most certainly include chaff. Like i said, if one is not looking at these things through conspiracy colored glasses, we come to completely different conclusions. So, the conspiracy itself is influencing you just as much as those you "debunk." Just as i am influenced by my education, etc. This is further evidenced when those who are using the generally accepted usage of the words are said to be "redefining" words to win a debate. i am a strong believer of "That which we speak most fervently tends to be directed at ourselves."

i feel it is important in a discussion to actually understand where the other person is coming from, whether or not i agree with them on the surface.

No, in 1919 persistent contrails were observed by a German pilot. As I said, the contrails produced then are no different from the contrails produced by jets. They are composed of ice crystals. They persisted and spread.

So.. They were not exactly the same, as you claimed, as the cause to the effect was completely and totally different? Perhaps mean what you say and say what you mean? Or else we can claim contrails are exactly the same as clouds, which is being quite disingenuous again. Their makeup may be similar or the same, but the cause is completely different. Its like rectangles and squares! Do note, i am using a relevant context here to illustrate the point. Well see if you debunk it or discuss it. Do you understand the difference as i am presenting it?

Read again. I said recently redefined...by the OP. Perhaps you can provide a source for "chemtrails" being used to refer to persistent contrails (the usual definition) before the conspiracy was presented.

You are correct, i did misread that. Interestingly, from my perspective, clarifying this seems to work against the point you are trying to make.. Which i assume was not your intention, so what does "redefine" mean to you? Do you mean it was redefined to its previous definition? Because that is exactly how i would and do understand it.

The OP is saying that cloud seeding occurs and calls them chemtrails. There is nothing there to "debunk" because he has chosen to redefine the term. He then proceeds to enter a circular argument saying that "chemtrails" are indistinguishable from contrails. He insists that the case even after being shown that cloud seeding bares no resemblance in appearance or function to the persistent contrails which are called "chemtrails". He has no reason to think that "chemtrails" would have the same appearance as contrails and continues to insist they do.

i do not speak for the OP, and i wonder why you feel so comfortable doing so? Though, i will say, the point i perceived that bsb was trying to make was never, at any point, actually addressed and discussed. Instead, it was "debunked." In that, if flew completely over most heads (as did my first post in this thread alluding to that, which i find endlessly entertaining ) Either way, i am not so much interested in your view of bsbray, i am interested in the questions i asked i dont expect anything other than "debunking," which i find mildly ironic as we both agree on the specific context of conspiracy defined chemical trails. Please phage, prove me wrong on that. Do you understand what i mean?

Originally posted by sinohptik

No, in 1919 persistent contrails were observed by a German pilot. As I said, the contrails produced then are no different from the contrails produced by jets. They are composed of ice crystals. They persisted and spread.

So.. They were not exactly the same, as you claimed, as the cause to the effect was completely and totally different? Perhaps mean what you say and say what you mean?

The physical principles of their contrail creation is the same. They were both created by the burning of hydrocarbon fuel, which creates water and nuclei, and this condenses and freezes in ice supersaturated air, which produces contrails.

One engine is just bigger than the other, and moves the air around differently, and the fuel would be slightly different in composition. But other than that, they are exactly the same.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4695bea72bad.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by sinohptik

Perhaps you should have said atmospheric aerosols instead of particle?

Why? I used the term bsbray used, in context. Was he referring to stars? I don't think so, since the discussion involves the atmosphere.

So.. They were not exactly the same, as you claimed, as the cause to the effect was completely and totally different? Perhaps mean what you say and say what you mean? Or else we can claim contrails are exactly the same as clouds, which is being quite disingenuous again.

Yes, they were the same. The cause and effect are exactly the same. Hot water vapor contained in the engine exhaust (be it internal combustion or jet turbine) initiates the condensation and freezing of water vapor in supersaturated air. It happened in 1919, it happened in 1944, it happened in the 1970's, and it happens today. The same cause, the same effect. Yes, they are exactly the same as clouds, cirrus clouds to be more precise. Please do not introduce exhaust products into the discussion, they are of minor import and not relevant to the discussion of "chemtrails".

Do you mean it was redefined to its previous definition? Because that is exactly how i would and do understand it.

No, it was redefined to include cloud seeding and crop dusting from the definition provided here:

Chemtrails, coming from "chemical trails" in the same fashion that contrail comes from "condensation trail" is a term coined to suggest that contrails are formed by something other than a natural process of engine exhaust hitting the cold air in the atmosphere. Proponents of chemtrails characterize these chemical trails as streams that persist for hours, and by their criss-crossing, grid-like patterns, or parallel stripes which eventually blend to form large clouds. Proponents view the presence of visible color spectra in the streams, unusual concentrations of sky tracks in a single area, or lingering tracks left by unmarked or military airplanes flying in atypical altitudes or locations as markers of chemtrails.

en.wikipedia.org...

here:

He stated that when a jet airplane flies at a certain altitude, a visible trail of streaks of condensed water vapor sometimes form in the wake of the aircraft. This is called a contrail. Contrails are normal and usually dissipate in a few seconds. They are very similar to when we breathe in cold weather. According to Oliveira, what occurs behind a SAG plane spraying aerosols is quite different. What can be seen is a thick white line also called a chemtrail that lingers in the sky for several hours. The SAG lines are sprayed into the upper atmosphere and then spread out forming what then appear to be clouds. The particles from these aerosols then fall to the ground where they enter our soil and water and can also be inhaled.

www.countercurrents.org...

Originally posted by Phage
Have I ever claimed to have proof that "chemtrails" don't exist?

You tell me. You have an awful habit of making definitive statements (like "The US government doesn't engage in much weather modification.") and then trying to defer your burden of proof onto others. I don't even keep track of all the assertions you make because I don't take them seriously.

reply to post by bsbray11

You tell me. You have an awful habit of making definitive statements (like "The US government doesn't engage in much weather modification.")

I made that statement because I looked for evidence of it happening. Cloud seeding is no secret conspiracy. If the the US government were doing it there would be RFPs, there would be contracts, there would be governors from one state screaming about why ( or why not) their neighbor is having it done.

Originally posted by Phage

You tell me. You have an awful habit of making definitive statements (like "The US government doesn't engage in much weather modification.")

I made that statement because I looked for evidence of it happening.

Oh, so now "I looked for evidence" constitutes having enough proof to make a definitive statement?

I'm sure this isn't new to you, but have you ever heard of confirmation bias, Phage? I can only think of one other reason you would be so obtuse to your own double-standards, but it's become a cliché on these forums.

Phage:

Why are cloudseeding, contrails, and crop dusting not chemical trails? Perhaps the "redefinition" could be more accurately portrayed as the "real" definition, as it is not subject to the whims of some baseless(sic) conspiracy.

All you know is "debunking," it seems you cant do anything else! i specifically worded things as a test of sorts. You were an unwitting participant despite my attempts to alert you to the situation. i was very, very sincerely asking you if you understood what i meant, and you do not.

Anyway, when variables in the equation change, it is not the same equation, period. Rectangles and squares! Containers and the contained. You can "debunk" that all you want, but the reality is different, and the equations are different, even if the outcome is the same. 2+2=4 and 3+1=4 are different despite having the same result.

Why wouldnt you say the results are the same, but the variables are indeed different? Instead of continuing to assert your statements are absolute and correct in any and all circumstances, and anything that differs needs "phage's clarification"

You will have to ask bsb what was meant by "particles." i will not answer that as readily as you, but im taking a stab in the dark it probably wasnt stars. Again though, we encounter yet another term that is being defined in a way to specifically debunk "X." Do you really not see how you are doing this?

So, how does the term "particle" not apply to chaff? And how would you know the specific context if you didnt specifically ask bsb? Absolute statements made off of assumptions are not the best foundation to build on...

Either way, the point is, chemical trails most certainly do exist, and chaff is certainly made up of particles, but you cant seem to think of them in any terms other than what can be "debunked" as far as the specific conspiracy. My question to you is "why?" Please, take a step back, get out of "auto-debunk" mode, and understand what is actually trying to be accomplished with my posts, i have spelled it out as clearly as i possibly can, so its on your end now.

Uncinus:

One engine is just bigger than the other, and moves the air around differently, and the fuel would be slightly different in composition. But other than that, they are exactly the same.

Now you are just being silly

reply to post by bsbray11

My statement is a null. It cannot be proven.

The converse, that the US Government is conducting weather modification ops can be proven. Weather modification is not a secret, if it were being done there would be no reason to conceal it. It would be easy to find evidence of it.

But I know you don't subscribe that.

Originally posted by Phage
My statement is a null. It cannot be proven.

Then what is the point of making assertions in the first place if you can't prove them?

I don't even do that, which is why I don't claim to have definitive proof of covert military chemtrail operations.

You can't handle the same degree of honesty I assume.


And btw, actually negatives can be proven. Check out Euclid's proof that there can't be a finite set of prime numbers. That's one famous example of a negative being proven. Again, the inherent difficulty in proving a negative doesn't give you a blank check to talk out of your ass and then use that as an excuse.

reply to post by bsbray11

Then what is the point of making assertions in the first place if you can't prove them?

Because I have good reason to.

A mathematically proof is not the same as a proof of a physical phenomenon.

Originally posted by Phage

Then what is the point of making assertions in the first place if you can't prove them?

Because I have good reason to.

That's an opinion. As distinct from proof, which you freely admit you don't have.

A mathematically proof is not the same as a proof of a physical phenomenon.

To categorically state that a negative statement cannot be proven is still false.

reply to post by bsbray11

That's an opinion. As distinct from proof, which you freely admit you don't have.

Yup. Everything I say, unless I say otherwise, is my opinion. But my opinion is backup up by logic and science.

To categorically state that a negative statement cannot be proven is still false.

But I didn't categorically state that, did I?