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

page: 41
79
<< 38  39  40    42  43 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

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.


If you mean the fact that you don't have proof (as you have freely admitted) is backed up by logic and science, then I can't argue with that.




posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

The logic lies in the fact that there is no evidence that it is happening. That is not proof but it is strong evidence.
Remember...hypothesis, null hypothesis.
The hypothesis that the US Government is engaging in weather modification (or geoengineering for that matter) has not been validated.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
The logic lies in the fact that there is no evidence that it is happening.


And that is perfectly fine if you leave it alone at that.

But you want to extrapolate this into meaning that therefore it can't happen, period, and that's where you go off into the deep end and demonstrate that famous double-standard of yours.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

I am free to have my opinions as you are free to have yours.

But when you must fiddle with definitions and when your arguments are circular, the logic behind your opinions falls down.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
I am free to have my opinions as you are free to have yours.


No doubt.


But when you must fiddle with definitions and when your arguments are circular, the logic behind your opinions falls down.


Now you're just making stuff up to get the last word in?

Come on Phage, you already know there is no authority on "the" definition of the word "chemtrail." Save yourself the trouble of appealing to straw-men and introducing so many other peoples' claims that have nothing to do with me and blah blah blah blah blah.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 




Come on Phage, you already know there is no authority on "the" definition of the word "chemtrail."

How nice for you then. You can claim "chemtrails" are anything you want them to be. You can claim they look just like cloud seeding because they are. You can claim they look just like crop dusting because they are.

Round and round. Don't you get dizzy?



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Come on Phage, you already know there is no authority on "the" definition of the word "chemtrail."

How nice for you then.


You too, you know.


You can claim "chemtrails" are anything you want them to be.


You too, and of course you do.



You can claim they look just like cloud seeding because they are. You can claim they look just like crop dusting because they are.

Round and round. Don't you get dizzy?


No, I don't drink liquor.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

I'll use the definition that the "chemtrail" believers use, including those who made the famous movie.


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...



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
I'll use the definition that the "chemtrail" believers


I'm a "chemtrail believer."


Are you saying only "chemtrail believers" wrote that Wikipedia article?



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


Why are cloudseeding, contrails, and crop dusting not chemical trails?

Who said those aren't chemicals? I understood what you meant. But we aren't talking about chemical trails, we are talking about "chemtrails". "Chemtrails" as defined by the "experts" and the believers. Go ahead, play bsbray's game too. Change the definition so it fits anything you want it to. Ships leave "chemtrails", cars leave "chemtrails", when you burp you leave a "chemtrail", cow farts are "chemtrails", we're surrounded by "chemtrails". What's the point if you keep expanding the definition of a word regardless of the context. Particles can be subatomic, they can be the size of stars. But in the context of a conversation they, and "chemtrails", have a specific meaning.


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.

It's the same equation:
Hot water vapor + cold moist air = contrail.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
After reading the 41 pages of this rather interesting yet amusing thread, I'll say that it honestly could have been condensed into 5 pages as the same arguments are repeated and the fingers are pointed in the same direction.

bsbray11 has a pretty clear premise here: You cannot prove that by looking at contrails that they are in fact contrails. Thus, the idea that they couldn't possibly be chemtrails is fallacious

but also that: Under the vague definitions of what chemtrails are, cloud seeding paves the idea that weather modification could be conducted for destructive means against mankind at altitudes at which contrails exist, to further conceal the agenda of the conspirators that conduct the operation for what ever reason.

The counter argument stands as: Just because the chemtrails "could" exist, does not constitute evidence or support that when one looks up in the sky and sees a white, vapor like trail emitted from an airplane at any altitude, that what that person is seeing is something other than a contrail

but also that: The claim is that chemtrails allready exist, and that there has not been any evidence brought to attention that hasn't been dimessed as false or hoax

anyway, either way I enjoy the debate, at least the limits at which someone stands by their arguments. I would like to see someone come forth willing to admit that they are in insider on the chemtrail thing. For some odd reason people like Bob Lazar can come up with Area51 info that spawns all new conspiracies, yet i don't know of anyone that has real detailed info the agenda and equipment for chemtrails. and Ted Gunderson's testimony says nothing more specific than a location, no names, no times/dates, no details.

don't be upset if i put words in any mouths these are just my opinions



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by juveous
 

But five pages obviously isn't enough.


but also that: The claim is that chemtrails allready exist, and that there has not been any evidence brought to attention that hasn't been dimessed as false or hoax

You'll want to add "or irrelevant" to that list.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Lets just go ahead and agree to disagree phage, even though i was only trying to figure out where you were coming from, as i related where i was coming from.

This is a waste of both of our time


All the best!



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by Phage
 


Lets just go ahead and agree to disagree phage, even though i was only trying to figure out where you were coming from, as i related where i was coming from.

I'll agree that regardless, you are still wrong.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by Phage
 


Lets just go ahead and agree to disagree phage, even though i was only trying to figure out where you were coming from, as i related where i was coming from.

I'll agree that regardless, you are still wrong.


Obviously, i wouldnt expect anything different


Remember though, i said i agree that conspiracy defined chemical trails are unlikely. So, im not quite sure what you are saying...

Have fun with your conspiracy, just dont let it consume your life! There are much more important things.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


I believe in no conspiracies, sir.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik
Remember though, i said i agree that conspiracy defined chemical trails are unlikely. So, im not quite sure what you are saying...


It doesn't matter what you say. Once he identifies you as an opponent you will simply be "wrong" no matter what you say, and he will hardly even read anything you post, except enough to start off on another rant.



Originally posted by adeclerk
I believe in no conspiracies, sir.


So you're a historical revisionist?

What about Watergate?

The Gulf of Tonkin incident?

The Iran-Contra affair?


The word "conspiracy" is defined as simply any illegal action that 2 or more people plan and participate in. People are charged with conspiracy all the time, even for robberies, fraud, you name it. You don't believe in any of this?

Of course you believe in those things.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Instead of using multiple moving goalposts, why not tell us what you mean by chemtrails. And then we can engage you in rational discussion.

You have a hypothesis. Tell us what it is and how it may be falsified.




posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Instead of using multiple moving goalposts, why not tell us what you mean by chemtrails. And then we can engage you in rational discussion.


I never moved any goal posts, you are just playing dumb. I've posted what "chemtrails" mean to me personally many times. It's any chemicals that the military/government is dumping into the air, that it has no business dumping, whether or weather modification, climate manipulation, turning people into guinea pigs to see what chemicals will to do them, or whatever other sorry reason.



You have a hypothesis. Tell us what it is and how it may be falsified.


Are you going to falsify covert military operations now?




posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


So you have no comment on all those conspiracies I just listed I guess?


Rather than have to ever go back on anything you say, you just ignore the thread instead. What a shock.



new topics
top topics
 
79
<< 38  39  40    42  43 >>

log in

join