Some More Chemtrail/Contrail/Cloud Pics?

Originally posted by Phage
No.

That was in response your statement.

and they could (and probably would) look the exact same as a normal contrail.

And that "probably" stems from nothing but your own biased pre-conceptions, of course.

No. It's based on my personal observations (incl videos and pics) of what it looks like when chemicals are sprayed from aircraft.

I am fully aware of what you were responding to, and so are you apparently, because you just repeated yourself.


You say they "probably" look the same but you have no facts or evidence, just your personal opinion based on looking at what farmers dump on their crops. Yeah, that's exactly the same thing.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by adeclerk

 

Let me know when you actually have proof that every white trail behind a plane is just a contrail.

Until then I don't have any need or desire to get into a pissing match with you over nonsense you make up in a vacuum of real data.

Sorry mate, the data shows contrails. Are you a troll? There is no way that someone can actually suggest that all of the hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of previous air tests, water and soil tests all over the USA (and the world) have come up with nothing in spite of these 'chemtrails'.

Here is another explanation of the burden of proof, since you still seem to not understand it.

Something is thick around here, and I don't think it's all the dihydrogen monoxide in them there 'chemtrails'.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by adeclerk

 

Let me know when you actually have proof that every white trail behind a plane is just a contrail.

Until then I don't have any need or desire to get into a pissing match with you over nonsense you make up in a vacuum of real data.

Yeah! Just because they all behave exactly like a contrail, which is proven to exist doesnt mean we cant make entirely speculative claims about some of them being composed of something unknown that we have no evidence for at all.

Originally posted by adeclerk
Could we get a 'chemtrail', contrail and a cloud pic side by side in this thread for some valid comparison?

I'd love it if someone could do this.

Then you'd finally have something to support your garbage that chemtrails must somehow look completely different than contrails, wouldn't you?

Originally posted by adeclerk
Sorry mate, the data shows contrails. Are you a troll? There is no way that someone can actually suggest that all of the hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of previous air tests, water and soil tests all over the USA (and the world) have come up with nothing in spite of these 'chemtrails'.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there have been no elevated levels of various elements in any air, soil or water tests. What world are you living on again?

Here is another explanation of the burden of proof, since you still seem to not understand it.

Maybe take a look at your own link, because all I'm pointing out is that your constant assertions that everything is a contrail, are based on nothing. That is the only claim I am making.

reply to post by bsbray11

Farmers. Cloud seeders. Fire fighters. Defoliators. Oil slick busters. Mosquito killers. All kinds of stuff.
None of the stuff they spray gets denser over time. None of it spreads out very much.

Originally posted by Phage
Farmers. Cloud seeders. Fire fighters. Defoliators. Oil slick busters. Mosquito killers. All kinds of stuff.
None of the stuff they spray gets denser over time. None of it spreads out very much.

And none of those are what this is about.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Just a bunch of government-stooges here makin up funny words and calling it "science" to cover up the mountains of evidence you have that those lines you see in the sky are not just water vapor, but chock full o chemcals that are making me type this right now!

What's ironic is that you have no evidence that they are water vapor either.

Are you under the impression that contrails are not proven to exist? As in, their chemical make-up and way of interacting with their environment isn't known, studied, and recognizable?

Just because the phenomena exists doesn't mean that every single white trail behind a plane is a contrail.

No. But considering they all behave in the same way as we know contrails behave, it is a pretty safe bet. And considering NO ONE has presented any evidence showing what else they could be, it seems a safe bet. But you are right, they might actually be skittles.

[ quote]You can't just look at these things and say, "Eureka! My eyeballs have deduced that the white trail behind that plane is pure water vapor!"

And yet you are supporting posters who say the exact same thing about 'chemtrails'

Yeah, just like we all know that "it's impossible to manipulate the weather with chemtrails."

Man wasn't it great when you guys could deny cloud seeding too? Made it a hell of a lot easier on you to mock people I bet.

no one is denying cloud seeding. what is being denied is pointing out something that looks and behaves exactly like a contrail being a 'chemtrail', which has never been prove,

reply to post by bsbray11

So you have reason to believe that sort of thing would look different?
Why?

Well, the balloons might. Depending on how big they are. Do they spray those?

reply to post by bsbray11


Did you see the logical fallacy in number 3? Perhaps you should read it again (I know you won't, since you ignore contrary points constantly, so I will outline it here).

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

Now, let's modify that to fit your argument.

"You cannot prove that some contrails are not 'chemtrails', therefore some are."

How do you not understand this logical fallacy?

(BTW: Got any evidence of elevated levels of chemicals in any of those tests that can be linked to 'chemtrail spraying'?)

Originally posted by Phage
So you have reason to believe that sort of thing would look different?
Why?

No, you are trying to put words in my mouth and your shaky position onto me.

I am claiming that you can't tell the difference, and saying what they would "probably" look like according to you doesn't make a rat's ass difference about that. Your "probably" has nothing to do with science or facts, no matter how many times you throw those words around.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Are you under the impression that contrails are not proven to exist?

No, and when you instantly start off a post with a straw-man like this, you I'm automatically not going to waste my time reading through the rest of it.

If you were actually reading my posts you would know better than to ask that by now. Sorry.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Phage
So you have reason to believe that sort of thing would look different?
Why?

No, you are trying to put words in my mouth and your shaky position onto me.

I am claiming that you can't tell the difference, and saying what they would "probably" look like according to you doesn't make a rat's ass difference about that.

how would they behave 'the same'? Does a trail of gasoline behave the same as a trail of glitter?

Originally posted by adeclerk

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

Now, let's modify that to fit your argument.

"You cannot prove that some contrails are not 'chemtrails', therefore some are."

How do you not understand this logical fallacy?

Once again you are imagining an argument that I am not actually making.

Since this is the second or third day in a row I've been engaged with you, I know you are trolling by now.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Are you under the impression that contrails are not proven to exist?

No, and when you instantly start off a post with a straw-man like this, you I'm automatically not going to waste my time reading through the rest of it.

If you were actually reading my posts you would know better than to ask that by now. Sorry.

Nice dodge, but your entire premise appeared to be based on that claim. Contrails do exist. They are not theory. Chemtrails are. Until you can provide evidence, all you will have is our appeal to emotion.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by bsbray11
I am claiming that you can't tell the difference, and saying what they would "probably" look like according to you doesn't make a rat's ass difference about that.

how would they behave 'the same'? Does a trail of gasoline behave the same as a trail of glitter?

What are you even talking about?

Look through my post again and see if you can even find the phrase "the same."

You people are losing it, and fast.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

Now, let's modify that to fit your argument.

"You cannot prove that some contrails are not 'chemtrails', therefore some are."

How do you not understand this logical fallacy?

Once again you are imagining an argument that I am not actually making.

Since this is the second or third day in a row I've been engaged with you, I know you are trolling by now.

"You cannot tell the composition of some white trails in the sky, and therefore some might be'chemtrails', despite the lack of evidence indicating that they are anything but water"

Is that a bit more spot on? Just as fallacious, can you tell?

reply to post by bsbray11

I didn't put words in your mouth.

Didn't you say that "chemtrail" spraying would look different from other types of spraying? And show that chart?

I asked you why would it look different from other types of spraying.

Originally posted by adeclerk

"You cannot tell the composition of some white trails in the sky, and therefore some might be'chemtrails', despite the lack of evidence indicating that they are anything but water"

Is that a bit more spot on? Just as fallacious, can you tell?

That's closer to the mark, but you are still making a fallacy in insinuating that something is proven in the lack of any evidence to the contrary. That is not how you prove something, by no one being able to prove you wrong. Again, go read your own links about fallacies for a change.

Originally posted by Phage
I didn't put words in your mouth.

Your question "So you have reason to believe... blah blah blah" was not actually based on anything I said.

So yes, you are inventing things and pretending I'm saying them. That is putting words in someone else's mouth, even if you do it in the form of a question.

Didn't you say that "chemtrail" spraying would look different from other types of spraying. And show that chart?

No, I clearly said that you wouldn't know to be able to tell the difference.

You confirmed this by giving me an answer based on a "probably," ie nothing but your opinionated garbage.