Just Now Witnesses Them Dispersing Chemtrails Over Springfield MO.

Originally posted by ICEKOHLD
but yeah...no one has any solid proof that they are real or fake and yet both sides swear they are right. ergo...this is not a case of logic...this is a case of ego.

Not really - one side (debunkers) has a vast amount of scientific evidence about how contrails form, and lots of pictures and videos of confirmed contrails dating back over 60 years

The other side (chemtrail believers) has no evidence.

It's never been about "solid proof", there's no solid proof unicorns exist. It's about the total lack of evidence supporting the chemtrail theory.

Originally posted by ICEKOHLD
reply to post by Quantum Logic

 

you are correct sir! there is actually no way to prove or disprove this, currently. well...unless the governemnt is doing it then they can prove it. but i mean hey...surely the government would never do anything that they kept secret?

but yeah...no one has any solid proof that they are real or fake and yet both sides swear they are right. ergo...this is not a case of logic...this is a case of ego.

However, its the chemtrail crowd who has the responsibility to provide proof of their claims, and not only have they never remotely given proof, but everything they claim has been quite explainable.

Somehow they have this idea that planes should never cross paths, and that somehow that means spraying if they do. It was the early chemtrail promoters like Will Thomas, who started that lie, along with his other lie that contrails can only last a few seconds.

Even in the face of photos from the 40s and 50s of long lasting contrails, they insist that it did not happen. Or even when they see aircraft navigation charts, with the thousands of routings that can cross, they insist that crossing means spraying. Of course, thats exactly how you do not spray, is with crossing paths and grids.

Have any of you chemtrailers ever thought about going in together on a flight tracking website subscription, where you can actually identify the overhead aircraft? I know that means getting away from conspiracy message boards, but you would actually be able to know what you are looking at, rather than just pictures of fuzzy intersecting contrails.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by anumohi

 

You're flaming me? You make a thread about Chemtrails happening now, and you can't produce any pictures whatsoever, and you are claiming this is what is causing F5 tornadoes? Wait...you also say it could be HAARP. Wait...is HAARP causing chemtrails now too?

Just stop already. Tornadoes are caused by a warm air mass colliding with a cold air mass that is picked up by a fast moving jet stream. Period.

The point at which the air masses first collide will always look ominous. That is probably what you were seeing...the power of Mother Nature and nothing else.

Ps- no camera phone? Kids' digital? Polaroid? Neighbor? Nothing??

#1 I don't need to prove anything to the likes of you....PERIOD,

if i say something is what it is ...IT IS.

when an aircraft at high altitude starts dispersing anything then stops, then comes back and starts dispersing and then it stops..it is exactly what it is, they are dispersing an aerosol chemical.

don't keep running your keyboard because you haven't the first clue of what you are saying and as it seems no amount of proof will ever convince you so FO

reply to post by firepilot


like i've said several times on this thread: those f[hotos from the 30s 40s and 50s of long contrails y'all keep talking about...why is it that if a ufo "finder" provides photos of a ufo...it's cgi but when chemtrails debunkers show pics of contrails from decades ago...it's fact? everything chemtrails debunkers use as fact (photos, government sites that track craft movement, yada yada yada) are sites/"facts" that can be eaisly manipulated by the same people who could be spraying chemtrails.

if i can't use a photo to prove that i'm 16 feet tall...you can't use a photo to prove chemtrails are fake. it kinda works both ways. and sorry...but if chemtrails are real...i seriously doubt that the FAA is gonna place those planes on their tracker site as anything other than passenger planes. so yeah...all the evidence y'all have really isn't that credible just as the evidence chemtrail believers isn't either. it's all speculation.

you could very well be a government employee. we don't know that. the only thing i know is...the skies have changed. clouds aren't like they used to be. my local forecast will call for a sunny day...and then an hour later...will call for a cloudy day. funny...cuz i've noticed the change in forecast happen right around the time that i start noticing planes.

so whether or not chemtrails are real...the world may never know. but i know this: chemtrail debunkers have yet to provide any proof that isn't as debunkable as any proff that chemtrail believers have provided. sorry if i don't trust old photos that i've never seen the original of or FAA websites or NASA websites. yeah...as far as i'm concerned...neither side has any credible proof that they are right. so until then...i'm just gonna go with my eyes/gut. not trolls who seem to have programs running to alert them every single time a chemtrail thread is started.

But its painfully obvious, that you would never accept anything. You have faith that you are being sprayed from up high, and without any evidence but your feelings and perceptions.

And anything that could be to the contrary, must therefore be altered, even without evidence that it was. What do you feel about how chemtrailers have altered photos though?

Are you one of those who things that the government goes into librarys and alters old books too? Do you think TPTB have a time machine so that people in the 1960s who studied persistent contrails, came into the future?

And you are right, yes before it rains, you can often have more and bigger contrails. YES. However, the contrails did not make it rain. The changing weather just made the contrails be more prominent, as moisture increased with the approaching weather.

And for all of you talking about perfect blue skies in the 50s and 60s, and how its all cruddy now, how do you reconcile the fact that air quality now is BETTER, than then, especially with particulates?

reply to post by firepilot


i don't know what chemtrails are. i know that i do believe in them. i really don't know that i buy into the whole "dumping poison on americans" idea, though. i doubt they would poison the air they breathe, but again, i don't know. all i know is that i don't believe that there is no such thing as chemtrails. i mean china is planning on using weather modification to keep the skies clear for the olympics. if they are trying to control the weather, why isn't america capable of trying to? the lines are just getting very blurry in this conspiracy, which usually happens as one gets closer to the hidden truth...

Originally posted by ICEKOHLD
reply to post by firepilot

 

like i've said several times on this thread: those f[hotos from the 30s 40s and 50s of long contrails y'all keep talking about...why is it that if a ufo "finder" provides photos of a ufo...it's cgi but when chemtrails debunkers show pics of contrails from decades ago...it's fact? everything chemtrails debunkers use as fact (photos, government sites that track craft movement, yada yada yada) are sites/"facts" that can be eaisly manipulated by the same people who could be spraying chemtrails.

Because the contrail photos are in science books about the weather. And no scientist disputes persistent contrails have always existed.

reply to post by Uncinus


i've never seen any science books with them in there. i don't know any scientists. and i do know that textbooks have been known to be manipulated by people to convey messages that they want others to see.

again...all the evidence you have is evidence that has been/can be debunked in other ways. your arguments are just as ungrounded/unprovable as mine, and yet you claim superiority. i'm at least claiming that i don't know and am keeping an open mind (and eyes).

reply to post by anumohi


Oh, for pity's sake, TRY to educate yourself:

flightaware.com...

Ask me anything, about the site, above, that you don't understand......

Originally posted by iversusvsversusi
Dude, its all day here as well. Ive noticed alot of them seem to always be laid down in front fo the sun. If not directly in front of the sun, they will lay them down in anticipation of their movements and wind, in which case they will spread out and 'settle' in front of the sun. This is a huge deal, a huge topic, so of course its treated like crap here.

I have to say that if you have any idea about what 'perspective' is then you wouldn't make a comment like this. The sun has no 'front', if somebody places something between you and the sun that means it is between you and the sun not in 'front' of the sun, oh and the sun moves, did you know that?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I've noticed how there are no chemtrail believers responses on this thread (link above), which I'd advise anyone with an open mind to read, let me state that again anyone with an open mind, not somebody who's denying ignorance right??

reply to post by seabhac-rua


no actually in front of would be correct. if i am 10 feet in front a car and someone places an orange cone between the car and myself, from MY PROSPECTIVE...that cone is in front of the car.

and people are saying that they are spraying in front of the sun or where the sun will be in the next few hours, so they are actually accounting for the fact that the sun does move. so um yeah...you just tried to sound all smart and really just sounded quite the opposite. why don't you look up prepositions (in grammar...you know...the words that describe placement and positions).

Originally posted by ICEKOHLD
reply to post by Uncinus

 

i've never seen any science books with them in there. i don't know any scientists. and i do know that textbooks have been known to be manipulated by people to convey messages that they want others to see.

again...all the evidence you have is evidence that has been/can be debunked in other ways. your arguments are just as ungrounded/unprovable as mine, and yet you claim superiority. i'm at least claiming that i don't know and am keeping an open mind (and eyes).

Sure, you can debunk all the science books by saying "I've not read any, and they can be faked anyway", and you can debunk scientists by saying "I don't know any scientists" - but that's not really debunking it, is it?

Are you really going to dismiss millions of scientists? Thousands of books and papers on meteorology?

A search of scientific papers on contrails returns 6,640 results from all around the world for the last 60 years. Are they all fake?

scholar.google.com...

Originally posted by anumohi
#1 I don't need to prove anything to the likes of you....PERIOD,

It's called ATS. It requires proof.

Look a giant UFO over NJ....right now....oops no camera. But trust me -- they are landing in Atlantic City chanting Trump! Trump! Come home!

I said it...it must be true.

if i say something is what it is ...IT IS.

And you are different than every other person on this site claiming the Illuminati stalks them, they are visited by aliens daily, and their DNA doesn't match human DNA.....how exactly?

when an aircraft at high altitude starts dispersing anything then stops, then comes back and starts dispersing and then it stops..it is exactly what it is, they are dispersing an aerosol chemical.

don't keep running your keyboard because you haven't the first clue of what you are saying and as it seems no amount of proof will ever convince you so FO

edit on 30-5-2011 by anumohi because: (no reason given)

That adds a lot of credibility. Nothing like cursing at me twice now, in two different posts, simply because I am asking for the simplest of things -- PICTURES -- and you don't have any.

Up above Springfield, was out all day working, I am up wind from you, just came in for a break but will go take a look.

Im about 45 miles north and yes there are some streaks holding together that look like feathers.

Weird little groupings of whispy white clouds intermixed too. Hope we dont all come down with upper resperatory, flu like symptoms...

reply to post by antar


Oh, for gawd's sake!

Weird little groupings of whispy white clouds intermixed too.

Those are called "Cirrus Clouds"!!!


CIRRUS CLOUD PHOTOS

It's really quite amazing how these planes can spray for HOURS... and yet magically, there is never a trace of chemicals in soil or water samples, nor air quality tests.

Why is that TC?

reply to post by ICEKOHLD


You must be equally dim. If you are standing behind the car does the same apply? No, because the car has a front, the sun does not The very idea of an aircraft spraying something in the sky so that whatever it was spraying would be in 'front' of the sun is just retarded. Did you know that people hundreds of miles away from you can see the sun at the same time as you???? If you call your friend who lives very far away from you and ask him can he see something in front of the sun would he see the same thing as you??? No he'd probably tell you to leave him alone.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by ICEKOHLD

 

You must be equally dim. If you are standing behind the car does the same apply? No, because the car has a front, the sun does not

The very idea of an aircraft spraying something in the sky so that whatever it was spraying would be in 'front' of the sun is just retarded. Did you know that people hundreds of miles away from you can see the sun at the same time as you???? If you call your friend who lives very far away from you and ask him can he see something in front of the sun would he see the same thing as you??? No he'd probably tell you to leave him alone.

Saying something is "in front of the sun" is common english. There is nothing wrong with the phrase, and it does not imply the sun has a front.

But it is just in front of the sun relative to the viewer, not everywhere.

reply to post by lpowell0627


I have photos that i took earlier and it looks just like every other chemtrail you've ever seen in a photo. you need to go see the them for yourself while they are dispersing them, then you will know. if you haven't ever watched them disperse before? then you don't know what you're missing, because its very distinctive and unlike any con trail you've ever seen before or after

[img]http://Free Image Hosting[/img]


[img]http://Free Image Hosting[/img]