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