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: 11
84
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
["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.


Arrant nonsense again.

It is trivially easy to prove chemtrails exist - it is eminently possible to take samples from aircraft available for hire for the precise purpose of sampling air.

It is also eminently possible to show what chamicals are in the make up of fuel, or are being loaded on board aircraft for purposes other than "normal" air transport. If ther are such materials they have to be handled, transported, manufactured, stored.

If there is equipment required to "spray" on board the aircraft then that can be photographed, it will be documetned in some manner (maintenance manuals, operating procedures, modifications to fit it, etc).

All these could be used to prove chemtrails exist without a shadow of doubt.



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


so do it properly so there are no excuses that can be made - if you can present me with verifiable I will certainly examine it...but if it holds up then it holds up.

Thios whining is no excuse to not get proper evidence - it is just an excuse to avoid having to face up to there being no evidence to get in the first place!




posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I just want to add my logic to this argument. Although I doubt it will help....

So lets say the Government/Military/PTB are spraying millions upon millions of tons of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere for whatever reason. Let's say, climate change. My first question is, why not release it to the public? Tell the public that you are dropping chemicals to help the environment? Oh...right because they are toxic. So now the government cares more about climate change than its people. So the same government that will not make cars more efficient or research alternative fuel sources is willing to cause harm/death/disease over climate change. Cool.

Second question: Who is working on the airfields? Who is flying the planes? Who is making the chemicals? Who is in charge? Who is loading the chemicals onto the plane?

That is alot of people to control and brainwash into not speaking out to the public.

Final question: If this government is evil enough, powerful enough, and technologically advanced enough to poison us or fix climate change from the air, why not make the chemicals invisible to the naked eye? Is it that hard to produce a chemical that is odorless and colorless?

That is why I think "chemtrails" are completely fringe conspiracies with little to no evidence of their existence.

But again, just my .02 cents.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by wcitizen
 

A hypothesis can be proven, that's the whole reason for developing a hypothesis.

Of course a hypothesis can be proven, but once it's proven it's not a hypothesis.

From Webster's dictionary:


Definition of HYPOTHESIS
1a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement




There is just one hypothesis here; "Chemtrails" exist.

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



No. Each hypothesis is a rebuttal of the other, but they are both hypotheses.






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.



You're making blanket statements here is if they were facts which refute chemtrails, but this is dishonest.

Subjective observations BECOME data when the same phenomenon is witnessed by significant numbers of people independently from each other in different parts of the world. The data then has to be interpreted, of course, but subjective observations ARE definitely considered data under certain given circumstances.




References to past activities are are not data which reject the null.



Th entirely depends on what the data is.

Past activities can indicate progression or regression of a phenomenon, and this is valid data as a comparison for current data on a said phenomenon. Past activities can indicate probability. This method is used all the time in the scientific and other fields as data to support validation or invalidation of a hypothesis, negative or positive. Of course, as always, how the data is interpreted also plays a significant role. .




References to proposed programs do not reject the null.



Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, not proof but evidence. Evidence of motive allows calculation of probability and likelihood - and must be considered when evidence is being assessed.....in criminal trials these are accepted as valid and are taken very seriously, as everyone knows. Credible witness testimony is also considered strong evidence. Because, in the absence of the smoking gun, irrefutable, absolute proof, probability and likelihood and credible witness become extremely important factors.





There is no data which rejects the null.



Now THAT is a SUBJECTIVE interpretation of the available data.




The null hypothesis still stands therefore the the hypothesis is not shown to be valid.


Nice try but unsustainable. Your subjective interpration of available data is what this comes down to. There is no data which definitively and irrefutably proves the 'null', and so it remains a unproven hypothesis. There is no data which definitively and irrefutably proves the 'hypothesis' as you call it, so it too remains unproven. Proof of the one will disprove the other. As yet neither has been proven or disproven.




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.


You know this is the most ridiculous argument put forward by so many deniers. If these are military black ops, as some people believe, this is impossible, and even without that it's nigh on impossible task, and you know it.

I'll tell you what. You get into area 51 and find me proof or otherwise of reptilians and I'll go into a secret military base and get a sample of the emissions from the military plane. Or even, why don't you just walk into the WH without any prior arrangement, get past all the security, walk into the oval office and ask the President yourself. If we're going to talk ridiculous, let's talk ridiculous.

Don't peddle that nonsensical argument, please.


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

edit on 31-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
You know this is the most ridiculous argument put forward by so many deniers. If these are military black ops, as some people believe, this is impossible, and even without that it's nigh on impossible task, and you know it.


That is probably a reasonable assumption IF these are military black ops.

But since many "chemtrails" come from airliners I think you need more than just that postulate (you haven't even made it a hypothesis
) to show that is the case before you can dismiss the call for such evidence so blithley.

As it stands, there is a great deal of evidence that that people are calling chemtrails come from airliners. I have seen suggestions that it is a military operation - often people mention "unmarked white planes" for example - but of course most airliners are "unmarked white planes" given insufficient magnification!

AFAIK the rest of hte evidence for a military black op consistes of saying "there's no evidence because its a secret therefore it must be military black" - which is an obviously circular argument that crops up far too damned often


edit on 31-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: crappy spelling



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 



You know this is the most ridiculous argument put forward by so many deniers. If these are military black ops, as some people believe, this is impossible, and even without that it's nigh on impossible task, and you know it.


No, it really isn't.

Your argument is classic strawman, comparing open airspace with places like area 51 and the white house is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Direct samples of your chemtrails can be done...There's just a lack of initiative from your side of the fence to make it happen.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
A good test of hypothesis (or "theory" in common usage), is its falsifiability.

en.wikipedia.org...


Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown to be false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated

Falsifiability is used in science and the philosophy of science. The concept was made popular by Karl Popper in his philosophical analysis of the scientific method. Popper argued that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is, among other things, falsifiable. That is, falsifiability is a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas. Popper asserted that unfalsifiable statements are non-scientific, although not without relevance.



Can you state your hypothesis in a way that can be falsified?
edit on 31-5-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by wcitizen
 


The part stating that all of the evidence points toward contrail.



That's an entirely subjective interpretation of existing evidence, and is actually a lie. But there again, you still haven't understood the difference between proof and evidence.




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.



See above. Until you understand the difference between evidence and proof this can only be a circular rhetoric going nowhere.




(I know you didn't explicitly claim anything, but you are implicating some could be 'chemtrails')

As it stands there are only contrails.



That's your hypothesis, not mine. The difference is that I'm honest enough to admit that I know it's a hypothesis. You keep trying to assert that your hypothesis is fact.




Unless you have some evidence to the contrary?


How about some evidence that contrails are simply contrails? There is none.


.






edit on 31-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
How about some evidence that contrails are simply contrails? There is none.


Evidence: They look and act exactly like contrails. All contrails that have been tested have been shown to be contrails. No scientist has even found a trail that is not a contrail.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
How about some evidence that contrails are simply contrails? There is none.


Wrong, all of the evidence leads to contrails, you just choose to ignore simple science, meteorology and logic. Ever wonder why no one has ever found a 'chemtrail'? Hint: It isn't because there are 'chemtrails'.

Why do you have so much faith in the 'chemspiracy'?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
OK, I'm off to take some photos of the spraying that's going on right now over my house.

Bye guys.
edit on 31-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen

How about some evidence that contrails are simply contrails? There is none.



edit on 31-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)


None? Then why is it the contrails start at some distance behind the engine? Hmmmmmmmm?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by wcitizen

How about some evidence that contrails are simply contrails? There is none.



edit on 31-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)


None? Then why is it the contrails start at some distance behind the engine? Hmmmmmmmm?


Also, contrails form 22 degree halos and sun-dogs, which can only happen if it's frozen water.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
HONESTLY, The amount of effort Weedwhacker goes to to squash every Chemtrail thread never ceases to amaze me.

Weedwhacker....I truly hope you're getting paid to do it. Otherwise it is a massive waste of your time to try and convince people of something other than what they believe in.

THIS ARGUMENT WILL NEVER BE WON. UNTIL WEEDWHACKER CAN GO UP INTO THE SKY TO TAKE SAMPLES AND TEST THEM TO SHOW THERE IS NO CHEMICAL NASTIES...OR UNTIL ONE OF US CHEMTRAIL BELIEVERS CAN GO UP THERE, GET A SAMPLE TO PROVE THERE ARE NASTIES...

THIS ARGUMENT WILL NEVER BE WON UNTIL ACTUAL PROOF IS PROVIDED. NOT VISUAL EVIDENCE....ACTUAL PROOF.

Until then...I suggest you Americans try guard yourself against radiation....that is seriously your biggest concern RIGHT NOW.

Please make sure you are aware of the radiation coming across your country.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightAssassin
THIS ARGUMENT WILL NEVER BE WON UNTIL ACTUAL PROOF IS PROVIDED. NOT VISUAL EVIDENCE....ACTUAL PROOF.


While the chemtrail argument can be proven (find one), then contrail argument cannot (test everything).

So it's not about proof. It never was (unless you find a chem plane). It's about evidence. Got any?

There's a LOT of evidence to support the contrail argument. Very little to support the chemtrail argument. That's all we have to go by.

So the question is: why would anyone believe in chemtrails, when the weight of the evidence is against them.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


You're making blanket statements here is if they were facts which refute chemtrails, but this is dishonest.

The quoted statement makes no refutation of "chemtrails" nor does the post. The existence of "chemtrails" has been proposed as a hypothesis. I am treating it as such.



Subjective observations BECOME data when the same phenomenon is witnessed by significant numbers of people independently from each other in different parts of the world. The data then has to be interpreted, of course, but subjective observations ARE definitely considered data under certain given circumstances.

When subjective observations are directly contradicted by other subjective observations, as well as historical data, they cannot be considered valid. Even if they were valid data they would not reject the null. If it were shown that there is an observable difference between "contrails" and "chemtrails" (not demonstrated) there could be factors other than "spraying" to account for them.



Past activities can indicate progression or regression of a phenomenon, and this is valid data as a comparison for current data on a said phenomenon. Past activities can indicate probability. This method is used all the time in the scientific and other fields as data to support validation or invalidation of a hypothesis, negative or positive. Of course, as always, how the data is interpreted also plays a significant role.

They may used to support the hypothesis but past activities do not reject the null.



Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, not proof but evidence. Evidence of motive allows calculation of probability and likelihood - and must be considered when evidence is being assessed.....in criminal trials these are accepted as valid and are taken very seriously, as everyone knows. Credible witness testimony is also considered strong evidence.

We are not talking about a criminal trial, we are talking about a scientific hypothesis. The circumstantial evidence does not reject the null.



Now THAT is a SUBJECTIVE interpretation of the available data.

If there is data which rejects the null it has not been provided.



Nice try but unsustainable. Your subjective interpration of available data is what this comes down to. There is no data which definitively and irrefutably proves the 'null', and so it remains a unproven hypothesis.

As I said, the null is unprovable. Unless evidence rejects the null, it stands. The only thing required to prove the hypothesis is a single sample of a "chemtrail".



Don't peddle that nonsensical argument, please.

The scientific method is nonsensical? The null stands. The hypothesis has not been validated.


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



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Okay lets cut to the chase!

Lets assume (hypothetically) that the population of planet earth is being sprayed with chemicals, and I do mean the whole planet, because contrails are observable anywhere on earth that atmospheric conditions are favourable.

1. What are they spraying?.......what chemical compositions/compounds do we know are being downloaded on us? and what evidence do we have for this?

2.Why would TPTB, or any organisation flood our skies and atmosphere with chemicals, when they and their families would be subject to the same effects of these chemicals that we would?

3.Why, when there is a scientific explanation for the "phenomena" that is "chemtrails" and it has been explained ad-infinitum, do people still try to claim that there is a conspiracy?

I live 5 miles (and have done all my life) from an international airport, I see contrails everyday, I am nearly 50 years old and I am as fit as a butchers dog!......and so are all of my family and friends!


Cirrus clouds will not harm me!


Where is the conspiracy?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by wcitizen
 


You're making blanket statements here is if they were facts which refute chemtrails, but this is dishonest.

The quoted statement makes no refutation of "chemtrails" nor does the post. The existence of "chemtrails" has been proposed as a hypothesis. I am treating it as such.

[/qupte]

Whi;e d





Subjective observations BECOME data when the same phenomenon is witnessed by significant numbers of people independently from each other in different parts of the world. The data then has to be interpreted, of course, but subjective observations ARE definitely considered data under certain given circumstances.

When subjective observations are directly contradicted by other subjective observations, as well as historical data, they cannot be considered valid. Even if they were valid data they would not reject the null. If it were shown that there is an observable difference between "contrails" and "chemtrails" (not demonstrated) there could be factors other than "spraying" to account for them.



Past activities can indicate progression or regression of a phenomenon, and this is valid data as a comparison for current data on a said phenomenon. Past activities can indicate probability. This method is used all the time in the scientific and other fields as data to support validation or invalidation of a hypothesis, negative or positive. Of course, as always, how the data is interpreted also plays a significant role.



They may used to support the hypothesis but past activities do not reject the null.




Are you going round in circles deliberately? I have already said neither hypothesis has been proven. This remains an undisputed fact. There is evidence to support both hypotheses. Interpretation of the evidence is subjective.


Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, not proof but evidence. Evidence of motive allows calculation of probability and likelihood - and must be considered when evidence is being assessed.....in criminal trials these are accepted as valid and are taken very seriously, as everyone knows. Credible witness testimony is also considered strong evidence.

We are not talking about a criminal trial, we are talking about a scientific hypothesis. The circumstantial evidence does not reject the null.



Now THAT is a SUBJECTIVE interpretation of the available data.

If there is data which rejects the null it has not been provided.



Nice try but unsustainable. Your subjective interpration of available data is what this comes down to. There is no data which definitively and irrefutably proves the 'null', and so it remains a unproven hypothesis.

As I said, the null is unprovable. Unless evidence rejects the null, it stands. The only thing required to prove the hypothesis is a single sample of a "chemtrail".



Don't peddle that nonsensical argument, please.

The scientific method is nonsensical? The null stands. The hypothesis has not been validated.


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




This is just semantics. The point I made is conclusive and has been admitted. Neither hypothesis has been proven or disproven. There's no wriggling out of that one. It's very simple and indisputable. The rest is down to opinion and interpretation of available evidence, nothing more. Semantics changes nothing.





edit on 31-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


This hypothesis has been proved - ther is no verifiable evidence that chemtrails exist.

this hypothesis has also been proved - there is verifiable evidence that contrails exist.

What else is required?

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



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by wcitizen
 


My hypothesis has been proved


Thank you for proving my point yet again.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Sorry - I edited it as you were replying.

Just what is yuor point again??
I seem to have lost track of it somewhere



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join