Some More Chemtrail/Contrail/Cloud Pics?

Originally posted by TETRA.X
reply to post by adeclerk

 

If no one is denying weather modification (just denying chemtrails), then please do tell...what are some other applications/techniques being employed for weather mod. that you DO believe in?

Thanks in advance.

Correct, no one is denying cloud seeding is occuring. It goes on by various means, but its not widespread at all. Chemtrailers try to disingenously use cloud seeding as evidence for chemtrails and say they are the same thing, but they are absolutely not what is chemtrails conspiracy is about.

reply to post by windword


I missed this video:

Originally posted by windword

Man! The ignorance displayed by the man narrating, doing the filming, is stunning!!!

It is an obvious contrail, and nothing else. Seen 'em for nearly fifty years (almost forty years, since I learned about them, and understand them).

This hysteria over clouds is fascinating...and, a little sad.....

reply to post by miniatus


Did you read the entire thread before commenting?...because I openly acknowledged that I have no evidence. I have eyes, I am not a scientist. While that was a nice attack, attacking somebody for something that they freely admit seems a bit like an exercise in futility. But that's just, like, my opinion, man.

And for the record, you have no evidence either. You say contrail, I say chemtrail. You deniers and apologists should at least come up with a new argument, like that it is for harmless weather modification or something. Make it sound benign. But to act like everybody else is delusional is just getting a bit ridiculous.

reply to post by wcitizen


You still, before going about shouting "chem"-trail, are missing the point:

Prove it.

Photos. This would be OF the equipment mounted on the jets, that fly at very high altitudes (telescope, anyone? With a camera mount on the eyepiece?)

Photos. This would mean OF the facilities showing the airplanes being loaded, with something to *spray* (and, this should be easiest....since, ALL airplanes that *do* this need to operate from an airport...on the ground. Gee, and bonus!! MORE photos of the *spraying equipment* that way...close-ups....).

WHERE are these photos?

WHERE is the proof?

Originally posted by HenryPatrick
reply to post by miniatus

 

And for the record, you have no evidence either. You say contrail, I say chemtrail.

Actually the contrail crowd DOES have evidence. What you see looks similar to photos and videos of contrails dating back over 50 years. Pretty solid evidence.

There's also no photos of anything other than contrails that resembles this.

So given that, what's more likely? Something real that's been around for 50+ years, that we have thousands of photos of? Or something invented in around 1997, of which no confirmed photos have ever been taken, and all suspicious photos look just like the old photos of contrails.

reply to post by HenryPatrick

You say contrail, I say chemtrail.

Well....then, guess every cloud you see, from now on, you might have to call it a "chem"-trail, too.

I often wonder why threads pertaining to "chemtrails" provoke such strong reactions from the ATS community. This thread for example started with someone using visual observation to deem contrails as "chemtrails." The OP even mistook naturally occurring cloud formations as "chemtrails"; a mistake which to the uninformed could be understandably made.

Several posters gave valid scientific evidence as to why the contrails could have persisted that day; citing such matters as nearby storm systems and other atmospheric conditions as the explanation for the persistent contrails. These posters were met with counter arguments that were entirely observationally based and which ignored the scientific explanations for the reality behind the observations.

I am puzzled as to why this occurs on a site dedicated to the denial of ignorance. Our eyes are not perfect and all that we think we see is often not what we think we see. To claim that an observation is a fact without supporting scientific evidence is an erroneous claim to make.

An example of this observational fallacy would be the "11th finger". If you extend your left and right index fingers towards each other while holding your hands approximately one to three inches from your nose you can not only see the "11th finger"; you can actually touch and feel its presence there. If we were to form a fact from this sole observation we would have no choice but to conclude that as the eyes see an "11th finger" and the brain perceives the physical sensation of touching this "11th" finger that humans indeed have a mysterious "11th finger." When one applies critical thinking and scientific scrutiny to those observations of the "11th finger' the fact that what we see is a "trick of perception" becomes readily apparent. I would encourage you to remember that the critical analysis of your eyes observations is very important before leaping to a conclusion.

I don't think you're crazy at all. I see that stuff all the time. The bottom line is, for clouds to form, there has to be moisture. If there was MOISTURE the clouds would form without the help of a jet engine. Furthermore, what little moisture comes out of a jet engine isn't enough to hang around half the day and expand to be what appears to be a half-mile wide.

reply to post by Dilligaf28

Several posters gave valid scientific evidence as to why the contrails could have persisted that day; citing such matters as nearby storm systems and other atmospheric conditions as the explanation for the persistent contrails.

No they did not provide any proof or evidence, just a cluttered maze of links and external content. Did you even read their posts or quoted links? I did, I took a lot of time actually. Please point out which posts provide undeniable proof that would debunk our "observational theories". All my counter posts were in according to their logic. They could not properly answer most of my questions. Instead, they would provide partial answers that were partial at best.

I will kindly wait for your response that points out which "evidence" they posted which proves the rest of us wrong.

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by wcitizen

 

I'm denying you have any evidence.

That might be considered extreme if you actually had some, but since you don't, then isn't it somewhat inaccurate?

Right, so the next step in the denier tactics manual is to get the poster to present evidence, then DENY and RIDICULE both the EVIDENCE and the POSTER, I've seen that nasty little trick used many times on these threads.whilst never admitting that you yourself have NO proof to back up your claims that all lines in the sky which are made by airplanes are contrails.

You all simply refuse to admit that you believe in a THEORY, based on your INTERPRETATION of evidence, which is exactly the same situation as those who believe in chemtrails.

Originally posted by HenryPatrick
I have seen one of the rumored orbs (data collection I assume) hovering inside a chemtrail. It was gone by the time I ran for a camera, but there is no mistaking that I witnessed some sort of top secret technology somehow related to the chemtrail that was right over my house.

Did it look like this? (go to the 4:35 mark)

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by wcitizen

I think you miss the important point there:

The evidence all points towards them being contrails.

That's all.

I can't prove my cat is not a robot cat by looking at it either. But the evidence all points towards it being a regular cat.

Nice try at twisting this, but no, I am not missing any important point here. It is simply YOUR OPINION that the evidence all points to them being contrails..

Other important points I haven't missed:

The extremist deniers continually assert subjective INTERPRETATION/OPINION as FACT.

Oh the basis of asserting interpretation/opinion as fact, he extremist deniers continaully harrass, insult and ridicule those whose INTERPRETATION/OPINION is different from their own INTERPRETATION/OPINION.

reply to post by SaberTruth


It's right there in the audio commentary....she says ".....a shiny balloon...."!

It is a mylar balloon (or balloons), helium filled, that some crying child was probably sad to see go......

Honestly, to see a metallic-mylar balloon, and say "chem"-trail??? Bottom of the barrel stuff, really....

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Ummmmwhat ELSE do you call, or define as, "evidence"???:

No they did not provide any proof or evidence, just a cluttered maze of links and external content.

Is this hypocrisy? That you don't realize??

What the heck are all the "chem"-trail *believers* using as their "evidence"?? Each time, the only thing possible, in an online forum like this, is to find the sources that directly refute that (usually, misguided and misunderstood, sometimes outright lies) with the solid proof of original sources, and the explanations.

This scam is slippery.....and, there are many at work, behind the scenes, to keep it going.....some of you just don't realize how easy it is, for them, to fool you, and con you.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SaberTruth

 

It's right there in the audio commentary....she says ".....a shiny balloon...."!

It is a mylar balloon (or balloons), helium filled, that some crying child was probably sad to see go......

Honestly, to see a metallic-mylar balloon, and say "chem"-trail??? Bottom of the barrel stuff, really....

The question was not for you, but for the person I was responding to, and merely asks if this is what he saw.

reply to post by weedwhacker


No comment.

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by wcitizen

 

How many times does the burden of proof need to be explained to 'chemtrail' believers? Read that whole article, come back and tell me which group is making the claim of something out of the ordinary (the claimant).

Please show me the evidence to prove that the definition of 'Burden of Proof' means that 'a group making ;a claim of something out of the ordinary' bears the Burden of Proof.

Please also explain the meaning of 'beyond reasonable doubt' and what that means to a jury.

Originally posted by wcitizen
Nice try at twisting this, but no, I am not missing any important point here. It is simply YOUR OPINION that the evidence all points to them being contrails..

Let's list the evidence:

1) Planes make persisting spreading contrails.
2) "Chemtrails" look like existing photos of contrails.
3) No good evidence has been offered of them being anything else

As far as I know, that's just accepted science and history and fact. It's not my opinion. If you think that's wrong, then explain why.

Do planes NOT make persisting spreading contrails?
Do the "chemtrails" not look like existing photos of contrails?
Has any evidence been offered of them being anything else?

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by wcitizen
Nice try at twisting this, but no, I am not missing any important point here. It is simply YOUR OPINION that the evidence all points to them being contrails..

Let's list the evidence:

1) Planes make persisting spreading contrails.
2) "Chemtrails" look like existing photos of contrails.
3) No good evidence has been offered of them being anything else

As far as I know, that's just accepted science and history and fact. It's not my opinion. If you think that's wrong, then explain why.

Do planes NOT make persisting spreading contrails?
Do the "chemtrails" not look like existing photos of contrails?
Has any evidence been offered of them being anything else?

You see, you've done it again. Slipped in 3) as if it were an objective fact, when in fact it's a SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION. That's one of the disinfo tactics described in the manual.

And then you use the 'accepted science and history and FACT' - which is the ubiquitous fallacy of 'appeal to authority' followed by a lie, which is stating OPINION is FACT. That's in the next chapter of the disinfo manual.

If it is FACT, show me the proof that ALL white lines in the sky created by airplanes are exclusively simple contrails.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Most chemtrailers don't claim their evidence to be proof. We are only questioning the obvious. Many skeptics portray the illusion that their evidence is proof which is a flawed approach. Please point out my hypocrisy. Don't call me a hypocrite without pointing out a specific example, it makes the accuser look childish.

Also, that comment was directed to a different member who claimed the evidence some of you presented as proof. Most of the chemtrailers are capable of admitting that there are many unanswered questions which is why we question things. Meanwhile the skeptics never rarely approach any discussion with an open mind. To make a long story short, at the end of the day you still have not submitted any proof yet you still accuse us of the same thing.