It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Some More Chemtrail/Contrail/Cloud Pics?

page: 10
84
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


There sure are a lot of chemtrail threads lately that lead to some great discussion. I believe that the overall opinion on ATS and off of here is that chemtrails exist. All the people from all over the world can't be wrong. It seems that it is always the same members always denying they exist. ATS should do a survey on the existence of chemtrails, I bet the results would show that most of us believe there is more going on than we are being told about this subject.




posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
As has been mentioned many times, air quality has gotten better since the 1960s, not worse. Particulates are much reduced compared to back then too.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iwinder

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
So clearly your experience is not universal.

There are plenty of photos on flikr of blue skies in Ontario - here's a search for "ontario sky" - www.flickr.com...

And here's one in particular that has various hades of blue around some intersting cloud formations from 2008 that is from teh font page of the search above:

www.flickr.com...@N00/3531228588/

Seems to me there's no shortage of blue skies in Ontario at all!
edit on 31-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


Ask me what my vision is and ask me what my memory capacity is?


no - actually I didn't.


Both are very close to perfect and I have resided all my life here in Ontario and you or anyone else cannot tell me that I am seeing things that are not there.


didn't say that either - but the photos are showing that you are not seeing thngs that ARE there!



I am talking Azure/deep blue sky here which has gone the way of the Mastiff.


did you not bother to actually look at the photos then? Plenty of deep blue azure skies in them....



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by wcitizen
 


I can't prove that a line in the sky is a contrail anymore than I can prove it is a 'chemtrail' or a jesus, the evidence all points toward contrail. You still don't understand the burden of proof, did you even read the article?

Might want to look up cognitive dissonance as well.



Oh, let me put that in capital letters.

Quote by adeclerk:

I can't prove that a line in the sky is a contrail anymore than I can prove it is a 'chemtrail'



and again

I can't prove that a line in the sky is a contrail anymore than I can prove it is a 'chemtrail'




YET, no matter what picture is presented, you STATE it's a contrail, and RIDICULE those who don't agree.

Not only that you REFUSE to admit it as a possibility, EVEN THOUGH as you yourself have just stated, YOU CAN'T PROVE YOUR OWN THEORY....because as you've just proven,you CAN'T PROVE your own constant assertion that all lines in the sky are merely contrails.

You missed the rest of that sentence, you know, the important part. Again with the cognitive dissonance, are you a troll or are you really this ignorant of reasoning skills?


What important part would that be?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 

A hypothesis can be proven, that's the whole reason for developing a hypothesis. There is just one hypothesis here; "Chemtrails" exist.

"Chemtrails" do not exist is the null of the hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is not provable. In order to prove it every contrail ever made and every contrail which will ever be made would have to be tested and shown to not contain materials which cannot be attributed to the combustion of jet fuel. Subjective observations are not data and they do not reject the null hypothesis. References to past activities are are not data which reject the null. References to proposed programs do not reject the null. There is no data which rejects the null. The null hypothesis still stands therefore the the hypothesis is not shown to be valid.

The hypothesis is provable. Provide a direct sample of a "chemtrail" and show that it contains materials which cannot be attributed to the combustion of jet fuel. Or provide evidence which rejects the null.

www.experiment-resources.com...
edit on 5/31/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iwinder
Ask me what my vision is and ask me what my memory capacity is?
Both are very close to perfect and I have resided all my life here in Ontario and you or anyone else cannot tell me that I am seeing things that are not there.
I am talking Azure/deep blue sky here which has gone the way of the Mastiff.
Regards, Iwinder


Perfect vision and memory eh?


Anyhow, try some polarized sunglasses, and see if that make things more like what you remember. I just took two photos, one with a polarizing filter, and one without:



Just a hypothesis, but did you maybe change sunglasses 15 years ago?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Iwinder

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
So clearly your experience is not universal.

There are plenty of photos on flikr of blue skies in Ontario - here's a search for "ontario sky" - www.flickr.com...

And here's one in particular that has various hades of blue around some intersting cloud formations from 2008 that is from teh font page of the search above:

www.flickr.com...@N00/3531228588/

Seems to me there's no shortage of blue skies in Ontario at all!
edit on 31-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


Ask me what my vision is and ask me what my memory capacity is?


no - actually I didn't.


Both are very close to perfect and I have resided all my life here in Ontario and you or anyone else cannot tell me that I am seeing things that are not there.


didn't say that either - but the photos are showing that you are not seeing thngs that ARE there!



I am talking Azure/deep blue sky here which has gone the way of the Mastiff.


did you not bother to actually look at the photos then? Plenty of deep blue azure skies in them....


Have you bothered to look up and see the missing blue?
I don't need your photos to know what I see......
How simple can it be to look up at the sky and notice that something is amiss?
Regards, iwinder



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iwinder
How simple can it be to look up at the sky and notice that something is amiss?


Very simple. Hence nothing is amiss, otherwise billions of people would have noticed it. Or at least a few hundred thousand scientists.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 

Just a hypothesis, but did you maybe change sunglasses 15 years ago?
Thats my whole point here, starting 15 years ago we didn't need sunglasses because there was no sun.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iwinder
reply to post by Uncinus
 

Just a hypothesis, but did you maybe change sunglasses 15 years ago?
Thats my whole point here, starting 15 years ago we didn't need sunglasses because there was no sun.
Regards, Iwinder


So you stopped using your sunglasses 15 years ago.

Were they polarized?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by Iwinder
How simple can it be to look up at the sky and notice that something is amiss?


Very simple. Hence nothing is amiss, otherwise billions of people would have noticed it. Or at least a few hundred thousand scientists.

The same scientists that told us the swine flu vaccination was safe?
Lord help us then.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
A hypothesis can be proven, that's the whole reason for developing a hypothesis. There is just one hypothesis here; "Chemtrails" exist.

"Chemtrails" do not exist is the null of the hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is not provable.


Then stop trying to prove it!

"Chemtrails exist" is also very difficult to prove given that you cannot look at a cloud trail from a plane and chemically analyze it with you eyeballs from thousands of feet away.

If chemical analyses of the air are introduced then you would invariably set to work making a million excuses.



This shows the means and motive:



Now you just have to accept that all of your dismissals are based on nothing but arrogance, and you can not tell whether any given trail is a chemtrail or a normal contrail. Give it up, Phage.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iwinder

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by Iwinder
How simple can it be to look up at the sky and notice that something is amiss?


Very simple. Hence nothing is amiss, otherwise billions of people would have noticed it. Or at least a few hundred thousand scientists.

The same scientists that told us the swine flu vaccination was safe?
Lord help us then.
Regards, Iwinder


No, different scientists. Meteorologists.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Now you just have to accept that all of your dismissals are based on nothing but arrogance, and you can not tell whether any given trail is a chemtrail or a normal contrail. Give it up, Phage.


Of course you can't tell. But you can weigh the evidence and come to a reasonable determination with a degree of certainty.

Now what PERCENTAGE would you say you think these trails are chemtrails?



I'm about 99.9% sure they are normal contrails, based on weighing the evidence.

Give it a go. What's your degree of certainty? 50% Chemtrails? 1% chemtrail? Or feel free to give a range.
edit on 31-5-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

None of the pictures ever shown look different from contrails. None of the videos show anything different from contrails. None of the contrails I've seen look different from contrails. There is no evidence that "sprayed" materials would have the same appearance as contrails.

There is no evidence that contrails are anything but contrails. It is illogical to demand proof that they are not.

I'll stick with logic and evidence. You...well, you'll keep on keeping on I suppose.

edit on 5/31/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by Iwinder

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by Iwinder
How simple can it be to look up at the sky and notice that something is amiss?


Very simple. Hence nothing is amiss, otherwise billions of people would have noticed it. Or at least a few hundred thousand scientists.

The same scientists that told us the swine flu vaccination was safe?
Lord help us then.
Regards, Iwinder


No, different scientists. Meteorologists.

You lumped the scientists all together as I quoted....you seem to think they are gods and I beg to differ....
It is quite obvious that they are prone to err or error big time.
How can we trust one group and not the other?
If they are all scientists then they are all correct?
Correct?
Regards, Iwinder



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
This shows the means and motive:




Now you just have to accept that all of your dismissals are based on nothing but arrogance, and you can not tell whether any given trail is a chemtrail or a normal contrail. Give it up, Phage.


Are you saying that the 2 possible "aircraft spray" items in that lsit are actually in use?

Because as you point out yourself elsewhere- all that is is a list of things being TALKED ABOUT.

How do you know what they would look like in order to know they would be indistinguishable, since htey aren't actually happening?

And why would anyone need to differentiate them by sight when they would be public knowledge and not secret at all??

edit on 31-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iwinder

You lumped the scientists all together as I quoted....you seem to think they are gods and I beg to differ....
It is quite obvious that they are prone to err or error big time.
How can we trust one group and not the other?
If they are all scientists then they are all correct?
Correct?
Regards, Iwinder


No not all. But there are literally THOUSANDS of meteorologists. And if you take scientists as a group, then there are millions.

You think they are ALL wrong? None of them noticed this change in the sky?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by Iwinder

You lumped the scientists all together as I quoted....you seem to think they are gods and I beg to differ....
It is quite obvious that they are prone to err or error big time.
How can we trust one group and not the other?
If they are all scientists then they are all correct?
Correct?
Regards, Iwinder


No not all. But there are literally THOUSANDS of meteorologists. And if you take scientists as a group, then there are millions.

You think they are ALL wrong? None of them noticed this change in the sky?


None of them noticed the havoc that was and is to come from the swine flu vaccination nor did they notice the affects from DDT or Asbestos or lead in gas or .........you get the idea.
Back to topic the sky is white on the best of days and never blue.....my eyes tell me true!
Regards, Iwinder



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


The part stating that all of the evidence points toward contrail. If you are going to make the claim that some contrails are 'chemtrails', I would expect you to have at least some evidence to support it. (I know you didn't explicitly claim anything, but you are implicating some could be 'chemtrails')

As it stands there are only contrails. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary?



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join