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

page: 42
79
<< 39  40  41    43 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.


In other words whatever you want them to be.

How may we identify these chemtrails?




Are you going to falsify covert military operations now?



Tell us how you hypothesise you can identify chemtrails and chances are yes, I will falsify you hypothesis

However saying that they look and behave identical to contrails is a cop out.

I am 100% certain that if any chemtrail spraying occurred it woud not be visible from the ground. I am curious as to why you are so certain that it can (or, depending on which goalposts you're playing with today, can only be identified on radar).




posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Remember, they're any chemical trail in the sky. Which includes contrails. But you can't call them contrails or chemtrails because you can't analyze the exact chemical makeup from the ground.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
In other words whatever you want them to be.

How may we identify these chemtrails?


There is no guaranteed way to identify them and I never claimed there to be.

At the same time, you can't just look at "contrails" in the sky and pretend to be able to chemically analyze them with your eyeballs.




Are you going to falsify covert military operations now?



Tell us how you hypothesise you can identify chemtrails and chances are yes, I will falsify you hypothesis


Doesn't look like that's happening today, chief.

So can you falsify covert military operations or not?



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


So chemtrails exist. But it's impossible to prove because they look and act just like normal contrails and are produced from aircraft that would be expected to produce normal contrails and the scientists studying how and why they form think they are normal contrails.

But it's never occurred to you they might just be contrails?

btw I have a herd of invisible unicorns living in my garden


Edit: And obviously I can only falsify your imaginary secret covert military operations to produce chemtrails which look and act identical to contrails (hence no-one can tell them apart) if you produce evidence they exist. Which obviously you can't. Er, which I think falsifies the premise? Though on the other hand, I think the invisible unicorns living in my garden are being trained by the North Koreans for an imminent invasion of Canada.
edit on 13-6-2011 by Essan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
So chemtrails exist.


That was proven as soon as they declassified Operation LAC, along with similar operations. It was going on in the 1950s at least.


But it's impossible to prove because they look and act just like normal contrails and are produced from aircraft that would be expected to produce normal contrails and the scientists studying how and why they form think they are normal contrails.


I didn't say they were impossible to prove. They're just impossible to prove one way or another just by staring at them with your eyeballs, unless you think you have some superman-like abilities?



btw I have a herd of invisible unicorns living in my garden


Have any declassified documents from the military talking about dumping invisible unicorns in your back yard?

How about a means and motive?

Looks like I've got at least 2 up on your sarcasm.





Edit: And obviously I can only falsify your imaginary secret covert military operations to produce chemtrails which look and act identical to contrails (hence no-one can tell them apart) if you produce evidence they exist. Which obviously you can't.


So in other words, no, you can't falsify covert military operations. At least you are honest.

And no, that doesn't disprove them, because that amounts to argument from ignorance. Seriously, you could have made the same argument in the 1950s and obviously you would have been wrong.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
According to your definition chemtrails existed as soon as the Chinese had paper balloons in ancient times "powered" by a candle or mugwort or similar.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
According to your definition chemtrails existed as soon as the Chinese had paper balloons in ancient times "powered" by a candle or mugwort or similar.


I am more concerned with what the military/government is dumping into the air, such as what was declassified about Operation LAC, than I am about what the ancient Chinese were doing.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
According to your definition chemtrails existed as soon as the Chinese had paper balloons in ancient times "powered" by a candle or mugwort or similar.


I am more concerned with what the military/government is dumping into the air, such as what was declassified about Operation LAC, than I am about what the ancient Chinese were doing.


so what ARE they dumping in the air these days??



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
so what ARE they dumping in the air these days??


That's exactly what I'd like to know.

Naively thinking that every white trail in the sky is just water vapor based on nothing but faith isn't going to resolve that question.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
so what ARE they dumping in the air these days??


That's exactly what I'd like to know.

Naively thinking that every white trail in the sky is just water vapor based on nothing but faith isn't going to resolve that question.


So what should people do?



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
So what should people do?


How do you think people should go about petitioning the military to release all classified material on any given subject?

All I can tell you at this point, is that one thing that's not going to help us is you staying on ATS all hours of the day "debunking" any and all chemtrail threads with every logical fallacy in the book.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


So you suggest that the military is obviously poisoning us, but we should do nothing about it?

Why not start by gathering some evidence of actual spraying? Like photos of planes?

Or is your entire point "there's probably a secret military operation that is harming the public, but there's no way we can know, and nothing we can do about it if we did"?

That's like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

How do you think people should go about petitioning the military to release all classified material on any given subject?


I think you are "giving" the gov't too much power here....especially when there ARE things you and others could do to expose the "chemtrail" claims.
The fact that these things are generally NOT being done, is increasingly becoming a thorn in the foot of the chemtrail community.

I think you are hiding behind the imaginary shield of "big gov't is great at keeping big secrets", and that until they admit or declassify this stuff....that you can never know the details about "chemtrails".

Stop hiding behind silly excuses, and start doing something about it, if you really feel as if you are being POISONED.

(It is ironic that the debunkers feel they need to motivate you, to actually provide some real evidence.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~

BTW, I think many "chemtrail" believers have made real attempts to gather strong evidence....but when they fail in their efforts to gather their desired results, those failed results rarely if ever, get shared with anyone.
edit on 16-6-2011 by EyeDontKnow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
So you suggest that the military is obviously poisoning us, but we should do nothing about it?


So you lie about what my posts say, except in a question form so it just looks like you're confused or can't read what I actually said?


Or is your entire point "there's probably a secret military operation that is harming the public, but there's no way we can know, and nothing we can do about it if we did"?


We know they've covertly dumped chemicals into the air before, with Operation LAC and etc. We know the government has means and motives for dumping more crap in our modern day and age for reflecting sunlight or whatever other lame excuse. My question is why wouldn't they do it? The only reason you can come up with is because apparently you trust them too much to think they would do such a thing, which is hilarious to me.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
So you suggest that the military is obviously poisoning us, but we should do nothing about it?


So you lie about what my posts say, except in a question form so it just looks like you're confused or can't read what I actually said?


Oh, so you DON'T think they are doing it? Sorry about that. That's why I was asking.




Or is your entire point "there's probably a secret military operation that is harming the public, but there's no way we can know, and nothing we can do about it if we did"?


We know they've covertly dumped chemicals into the air before, with Operation LAC and etc. We know the government has means and motives for dumping more crap in our modern day and age for reflecting sunlight or whatever other lame excuse. My question is why wouldn't they do it? The only reason you can come up with is because apparently you trust them too much to think they would do such a thing, which is hilarious to me.


Wait, so you DO think they are doing it?

No, I think I've got it. You think they are PROBABLY doing it, based on what they have done in the past. But you don't know what it is, exactly, and you don't think there's any physical evidence?

Why don't you just tell us what you think. Save a lot of trouble.
edit on 16-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
Oh, so you DON'T think they are doing it? Sorry about that. That's why I was asking.


I never said we should do nothing about it. That is what you were lying about, and I know you put words in my mouth intentionally just to troll.


Wait, so you DO think they are doing it?

No, I think I've got it. You think they are PROBABLY doing it, based on what they have done in the past. But you don't know what it is, exactly, and you don't think there's any physical evidence?


I said I don't have proof. Whether or not there is evidence is a point of contention because you will make up a hundred excuses for any water test, photograph, declassification of past activities or government admission of active testing (such as with the UK report for the House of Commons) or anything else that may very well be the evidence you ask for. All of these things point to the same thing, while all of your excuses point off into a hundred different directions that make no sense taken together unless you seriously want me to believe in a serious of ridiculous "coincidences."



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
Oh, so you DON'T think they are doing it? Sorry about that. That's why I was asking.


I never said we should do nothing about it. That is what you were lying about, and I know you put words in my mouth intentionally just to troll.


He didn't put words into your mouth - he was asking a question as to if this is what you believe.

so what is it you believe??



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
He didn't put words into your mouth - he was asking a question as to if this is what you believe.


A question that would be answered if he actually read my posts, and that he would never have to ask in the first place, let alone make up things that I never even said and ask them as if I had.


so what is it you believe??


You can start by actually reading my posts too:



I said I don't have proof. Whether or not there is evidence is a point of contention because you will make up a hundred excuses for any water test, photograph, declassification of past activities or government admission of active testing (such as with the UK report for the House of Commons) or anything else that may very well be the evidence you ask for. All of these things point to the same thing, while all of your excuses point off into a hundred different directions that make no sense taken together unless you seriously want me to believe in a serious of ridiculous "coincidences."



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
He didn't put words into your mouth - he was asking a question as to if this is what you believe.


A question that would be answered if he actually read my posts, and that he would never have to ask in the first place, let alone make up things that I never even said and ask them as if I had.


nonetheless it is stil a question and is not putting words into your mouth as you stated.



so what is it you believe??


You can start by actually reading my posts too:



I said I don't have proof. Whether or not there is evidence is a point of contention because you will make up a hundred excuses for any water test, photograph, declassification of past activities or government admission of active testing (such as with the UK report for the House of Commons) or anything else that may very well be the evidence you ask for. All of these things point to the same thing, while all of your excuses point off into a hundred different directions that make no sense taken together unless you seriously want me to believe in a serious of ridiculous "coincidences."


That doesn't actually state what you believe!!

It states that you dont' have proof - but proof of what?

It states that all these things point to the same thing - but doesn't state what that thing is.

it states that you think other people have excuses for "a series of ridiculous "coincidence"", but doesn't state what hte coincidences are, nor why they are ridiculous.

It is, in short, the sort of statement of belief I have come to expect from peristent chemmies - a non-statement of belief - vague asseertions of somethign that is never actually specifically mentioned, assertions and judgements of something that is not actualy identified, condemnation of anything/one that disagrees with your non-stated point.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by bsbray11
A question that would be answered if he actually read my posts, and that he would never have to ask in the first place, let alone make up things that I never even said and ask them as if I had.


nonetheless it is stil a question and is not putting words into your mouth as you stated.


Yes, "nonetheless."



That doesn't actually state what you believe!!


It states exactly what I believe, and I would know.

Try not to make this over-complicated. I said I am not claiming to have proof. I just pointed out all the circumstantial evidence to back my opinions. All you have are opinions too, except all I've seen from you are fallacious arguments trying to prove that your opinions are actually facts, when they are not.





new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 39  40  41    43 >>

log in

join