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

Originally posted by Uncinus
I imagine the poster posted it because it was used to illustrate a story about cloud seeding.

That may be the case, but it still proves my point.


According to that poster, it was an image of cloud seeding.

I said, I can't tell the difference between that and a cirrus cloud!

Then you come along and say they ARE cirrus clouds, and not cloud seeding.


You don't see how this proved my point exactly?

I can certainly tell the difference between every instance of cloud seeding I've ever seen on photos or video, and all the contrails I've see.

How do you know? Do your eyes perform chemical analyses from a distance, or is there just nothing to ever correct you anyway so you assume you've never made an error?

I'll admit an outside possibility that some of the trails that look like contrails are actually some unusual kind of blue-sky cloud seeding that I've never heard of, that exactly resembles contrails, and is top secret. But I see no more evidence for than than for robot cats.

Introducing Tekno Kitty! This robot cat walks forward, backward, right and left - Her tail, ears and head move as well! Tekno Kitty is the robot kitten that acts just like a real pet kitten. Tekno Kitty has touch, sound, light, and motion sensors that help it interact with you and your environment.

www.searchamateur.com...


You'll have to come up with a more outlandish form of mockery than that.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by CaDreamer
this is like trying to prove that reptilians are real... they look like us so how would we know or not know....

think i will start a thread on santa is he real or is that your dad dressed like santa?

Unfortunately neither of those things take away from the fact that no, you can't tell the chemical make-up of the trail left by a plane just by looking at it.

Straw man. Nobody ever said you could.

Reductio ad absurdum: you can't tell anything by looking at it. Your argument is meaningless.

what you are implying is that since we cant chemically analyze the contrails that some of them may be chemtrails its possible. not plausible nor likely but possible.

i could in the lottery too that's also possible.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by sinohptik

 

You probably don't - in which case why would you label it as one or other?

i know, right?

reply to post by Uncinus]

i am pretty sure i could come up with pictures of contrails that would fit both of those descriptions due to varying atmospheric conditions. And, depending on frequency of photographs, fuel dumps as well.

Documentation to be able to identify such things is not known to exist (as you say), which supports the notion that we do not know how such trails would be affected by varying atmospheric conditions and how closely they would be related to fuel dumps and contrails (which i do not feel are as distinct as you suggest).

If, for whatever reason, someone was cloud seeding at commercial flight elevation, how would you be able to tell the difference between that, a fuel dump, and a contrail? You say it is very distinct between the latter two, so i expect the former would manifest different behavior as well since it is a different substance. i mean, we assume that cloud seeding is not regularly done even with clouds right?

While i think "chemtrails" are not "likely," i am not sure how lack of evidence can be used as evidence of absence. Is it safe to assume you understand the inherent difficulty in such assertions?

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by bsbray11
Unfortunately neither of those things take away from the fact that no, you can't tell the chemical make-up of the trail left by a plane just by looking at it.

Straw man. Nobody ever said you could.

Reductio ad absurdum: you can't tell anything by looking at it. Your argument is meaningless.

The fact that you can't tell the make-up of what a plane leaves behind, means something in itself.

It means exactly what it says.


And since this is pretty much the whole point of the OP, it's hardly a straw-man. It's all the other irrelevant crap people are posting, that are the true straw men.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by bsbray11
Look guys... This poster is not saying that all contrails are chemtrails. He is just saying that he can't just look at a white trail of a cloud in the sky and tell what its chemical make-up is.

So why isn't anyone complaining about clouds in the sky - we dont' know what is in them after all....

At what point does mockery equate to logic in your distorted view of things?

Are you finally admitting that your eyes don't perform chemical analyses on cloud formations thousands of feet away, or are you just taking the opportunity for another cheap derogatory jab?

And you say I missed the point...

So who can, and how do you do it?

By experience perhaps?

What happened to logic and reasoning?

that would be the bit where I noted that we know contrails exist, the trails in question look and behave like contrails, and htere is no evidence to say they are anything else, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the ARE contrails.

I presume you did read that since you quoted past it, so I am curious why you think that my reasining was neither reasonable nor logical, but didnt' bother to quote it and demolish it for us all?

I guess you gave up on that for insults and cop-outs huh?

Nope - you just deleted it and are ignoring the releveant bits of my post - I'm used to that from chemmies.

You can't possibly have experience with telling water vapor trails apart from something you claim doesn't even exist.

Indeed - since they don't exist I have to use reason and logic to determine whether what I see fits the the known facts - and it does, so I conclude that what I see is what is already known about.

As I said - if you can provide some reason why I should think otherwise then I will do so - you simply ignoring my reasoning is not sufficient reason

Now present some evidence that they are anything else and I'll re-evaluate.

I don't have to present evidence of anything else. I have proven my only point: you can't tell what the make-up of a cloud behind a plane is just by looking at it.

Why should I have to?

You ignored the bit about experience and lack of alternative evidence, so I'm going to repeat it YET again:

1/ trails look like contrails
2/ trails behave like contrails
3/ trails form when contrails can be expected to form
4/ so I conclude that the trails ARE contrails.

This is what people call and argument - in the philosophical sense - a conclusion based upon premise.

To prove me wrong you ned to show that 1 or more of the premise is wrong, or thtat the conclusion does not follow the premise.

Go for it...woof woof.

Now keep barking about it.

Woof, woof - perhaps that makes more ssense to you!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by bsbray11

 

.....or the fact that they are very open about it.

There are countless places around the world, where "cloud seeding" occurs....there is nothing clandestine about it!

You (seem) new to this topic, and like in some other areas, are finding a 'conspiracy' where none exists!

BTW....this really needed its own thread?? This same stuff was posted (by you) in another thread, and explained already.....

Yeah I was told in my aviation class that some areas use techniques like that to prevent hailstorms around airports.. Imagine the amount of damage that could be done to hundred multi-million dollar jumbo jets.

Originally posted by CaDreamer
what you are implying is that since we cant chemically analyze the contrails that some of them may be chemtrails its possible. not plausible nor likely but possible.

i could in the lottery too that's also possible.

For you to even admit the possibility satisfies me. Remember I'm not even claiming what is a chemtrail and what isn't. My whole point is that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference, and I don't believe anyone else when they say they can either, especially when they can't explain it to me in a way that would allow me to be able to tell the difference just by looking.

Originally posted by CaDreamer
www.mtshastanews.com... seeded clouds silver oxide

www-pm.larc.nasa.gov... multiple contrails ...

use of the term chemtrail is deceptive and belongs to the tin foil hat wearers...

That second photo is used for contrails, lol? Really?
Why do I call that slight of hand and lameness on their part?

To think that something might be a chemtrails you need to allow that they exist in the first place.

So if you think that some of those trails might be chemtrails you ARE a chemmie.

just like I might be a reptiloid overlord.....'cos you can't tell just by looking at us...hiss....woof....

Originally posted by Unity_99

Originally posted by CaDreamer
www.mtshastanews.com... seeded clouds silver oxide

www-pm.larc.nasa.gov... multiple contrails ...

use of the term chemtrail is deceptive and belongs to the tin foil hat wearers...

That second photo is used for contrails, lol? Really?

Why do I call that slight of hand and lameness on their part?

edit on 29-5-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

See, your regular chemtrail believer thinks that chemtrails DO look different to contrails.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by bsbray11
At what point does mockery equate to logic in your distorted view of things?

Are you finally admitting that your eyes don't perform chemical analyses on cloud formations thousands of feet away, or are you just taking the opportunity for another cheap derogatory jab?

And you say I missed the point...

And you're still not making any real point.

So who can [tell the difference between water vapor and any other chemical], and how do you do it?

By experience perhaps?

What happened to logic and reasoning?

that would be the bit where I noted that we know contrails exist, the trails in question look and behave like contrails, and htere is no evidence to say they are anything else, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the ARE contrails.

That's not logic, that's dressing up faith to make it sound more logical. That's like me saying that I don't normally wreck my car, there is no evidence I will ever wreck my car, therefore I will never wreck my car. It's not actually logical at all, and is an abuse of the word. You apparently think that nothing you don't immediately have direct evidence for, automatically can't exist, and to you this is "logic."

You ignored teh bit about experience and lack of alternative evidence, so I'm going to repeat it again:

1/ trails look like contrails
2/ trails behave like contrails
3/ trails form when contrails can be expected to form
4/ so I conclude that the trails ARE contrails.

I'm not ignoring this. I'm saying there is no way for you to tell the difference between a contrail and any other white cloud left behind by a plane. You are not making any comparison at all. You're just stating that something exists and therefore it's all that exists, which is pure drivel.

Congrats, you successfully have framed an argument in such a way that you were correct on a certain aspect of it. Still wrong about the 'chemtrails', though.

Also lets turn the tables around, where they belong, instead of in the backwards world.

They, and all their "established" scientists, workers, are mere employees of the collective will of the employers, us, the true bosses, (no matter what shady deals they work behind the scenes). As a member of their employer group, I'm not interested in towing the line and having them feed more lameness my way. I don't have to prove my conspiracy theory. I just have to suspect they're not being forth coming. And they, the employee, would have bend over backwards to completely satisfy me, and prove something they've NEVER managed to do yet.

The onus is on them,not me, the employer.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You can keep mocking this all you want but mockery does not equate to a logical rebuttal.

there doesnt' need to be a "logical rebuttal" to chemtrails based upon the look of the trails themselves.

Trying to say that you can't rebut them based upon an inability to chemically analyse trails by eyesight begs teh question as to whether they exist in the first place.

The logical rebuttal comes much earlier in the argument - there is nothing that shows that chemtrails exist in the first place.

That is all the logical rebuttal required.

Sorry - I hadn't realised you were trying to use logical fallacies to prove chemtrails exist - I thought you said you didn't know....

Originally posted by adeclerk
Congrats, you successfully have framed an argument in such a way that you were correct on a certain aspect of it. Still wrong about the 'chemtrails', though.

You mean still wrong about calling chemicals dumped into the air in an effort to manipulate weather patterns, a chemtrail?

That must be some fine line you're drawing.

Originally posted by bsbray11
My whole point is that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference, and I don't believe anyone else when they say they can either, especially when they can't explain it to me in a way that would allow me to be able to tell the difference just by looking.

The difference between what, exactly?

A) Between a contrail and the trail left by a plane fitted with silver iodide flares on a blue sky?
B) Between a contrail and the trail left by a plane leaving a trail that looked exactly like a contrail.

You are being disingenuous to the point of trolling. Nobody denies it's theoretically possible to make trails that look like contrails on a clear blue sky at high altitude.

NOBODY.

What people are saying is that there's no evidence it's actually happening. None.

Originally posted by Unity_99
Also lets turn the tables around, where they belong, instead of in the backwards world.

Let's not assume the world is backwards in teh first place.....

They, and all their "established" scientists, workers, are mere employees of the collective will of the employers, us, the true bosses, (no matter what shady deals they work behind the scenes). As a member of their employer group, I'm not interested in towing the line and having them feed more lameness my way.

so you dont' want to accept any more science??

I don't have to prove my conspiracy theory.

Says who? You? Who are you to say that millions of scientists are wrong? some dude with a conspiracy chip on his shoulder who doesnt' like facts and evidence getting in the way?

I just have to suspect they're not being forth coming. And they, the employee, would have bend over backwards to completely satisfy me, and prove something they've managed to do yet.

There is no employment relationship in the free world liek that (or there shouldn't be) - "they" are innocent until you have some evidene otherwise - whether they are employees or not.

The onus is on them,not me, the employer.

Incorrect - try being an employer in any civilised society and getting away with sacking someone on suspicion of something that you have no proof of and they have a watertight alibi for?

More chemtrails morons - does this hoax just appeal to the thick or something??

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by bsbray11
You can keep mocking this all you want but mockery does not equate to a logical rebuttal.

there doesnt' need to be a "logical rebuttal" to chemtrails based upon the look of the trails themselves.

Trying to say that you can't rebut them based upon an inability to chemically analyse trails by eyesight begs teh question as to whether they exist in the first place.

And your argument is apparently that they can't possibly exist because contrails exist and that's all there can be, because you have no evidence of anything else. Which is not actually a logical argument.

Sorry - I hadn't realised you were trying to use logical fallacies to prove chemtrails exist - I thought you said you didn't know....

The only sense in which I am saying chemtrails do in fact exist is in the sense that chemicals are dumped into the air to manipulate weather patterns. Period. And unless you work for the US military (which has asked Congress for funding for this same thing) then I'm not going to take your word on what all they can and can't do. It's still an open question.

Originally posted by bsbray11

You ignored teh bit about experience and lack of alternative evidence, so I'm going to repeat it again:

1/ trails look like contrails
2/ trails behave like contrails
3/ trails form when contrails can be expected to form
4/ so I conclude that the trails ARE contrails.

I'm not ignoring this. I'm saying there is no way for you to tell the difference between a contrail and any other white cloud left behind by a plane.

We already proved that wrong.

You are not making any comparison at all. You're just stating that something exists and therefore it's all that exists, which is pure drivel.

No - I'm saying something exists, what I see fits all the known parameters of what I see, and ther's no evidence that it could be anything else, therefore what I see is that which I know exists.

I dont' have to compare anything.