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: 7
84
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

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




posted on May, 31 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


You see what I did above though?

I made a list of all the evidence for and against. It was very compelling.

Why can't your side make a list that compelling for your argument? Why hide your evidence away?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I have noticed in my brief time here on ATS that it seems every square inch of the sky is "busy airspace" to you. No matter the location in question you always reply with "do you know how busy the airspace is where you are?"!


IMHO, if all the airspace were as busy as you make it out to be, wouldn't there appear to be Contrails covering the sky's in said location! If one were causing it, wouldn't all of them cause it opposed to just a few?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


What a difference an '/' makes..... post now corrected to make it clear that it was I who used the word drivel, meaning I considered what you said to be drivel.

I hope that clarifies it.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by JaeBea
 


Not really.

You have to sort out those who keep seeing many contrails, and post them as "chem"-trails, compared to others who never comment, or write in to say they see hardly any.

It is, like the real estate motto: "Location, Location, Location".



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by TexasTea
 



Yep, they got onto this one quickly. Isn't that ..umm, "funny", that the same ones jump on any chemtrail post as fast as possible to derail it?


"derail"??

You have it all wrong.

Dispute.

Explain.

Educate.


If a thread started on any topic, and it was obvious bunk, and had NO science to back it up --- NO proof --- but, was claimed as "true"?

Well, the only ones of that sort that are usually unassailable, are in forums such as "Religion and Creationism" or "Predictions and Prophecies".

(Or, maybe "Skunk Works", etc)


Because, unlike a science-based fact, a "chem"-trail belief is not much different from a religious belief. Has all the same indications, and behaviors, by the *faithful*....


BTW...you will notice many of the "same ones" coming here constantly, and repeating the same tired old, discredited garbage, over and over. What's worse, is MORE are making "new" accounts ("new" in quotes, since it's obvious often, that they aren't really "new" to ATS) to further spread their "religion".

It looks more and more like a concerted effort to keep the con, the scam, the hoax...the money-maker alive, best they can, by keeping the myth going.

Follow the money....you will find the culprits.



edit on Tue 31 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


I starred you on this one Weedwhacker. You are priceless and I am growing fond of you. LOL I believe that you really are motivated by "Dispute, Explain, and Educate. At times you are a truely patient and congenialy gifted teacher.

"Follow the money," really? Is there a lot of money in chemtrail youtube videos, lectures and books? Maybe. But I would venture to say that you have full time job as a debunker. You are either getting paid for the stealth in which you swoop in to monitor and educate us, or, you are truely "obsessive/complusive. My thinking is leaning to the former. But cuddos to you, you are consistant.

It seems to me the people with the most money have the most to hide. In this case it isn't us "chemtrailers." But hey, Who are you going to believe, debunkers or our lying eyes?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
It seems to me the people with the most money have the most to hide. In this case it isn't us "chemtrailers." But hey, Who are you going to believe, debunkers or our lying eyes?


I don't think he's suggesting YOU are shilling for money. He's suggesting you've been duped by the likes of Alex Jones, Art Bell, William Thomas, Jeff Rense, Clifford Carnicom, and Michael J. Murphy - all of whom make (or attempt to make) money from promoting fear, including fear of chemtrails.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 



"Follow the money," really?


Originally. In other posts, there are references to the 1990s, and the radio show by Art Bell, well-known conspiracy propagandist, via his listening audience on AM radio.

A promotion, initially, for a bogus "cure"...an elixir or salve or something, guaranteed to appeal to every hypochondriac within range of a transistor radio. For sale by, of course...Art Bell (and his partners).

The premise of "chem"-trails came about, gradually in that way....and, developed a life of its own, ever since.

Meantime, there are simply gullible people who will flock to any outrageous "conspiracy idea", with the requisite feeble outrage at "them", the "PTB", etc. Futilely ranting at nothing, but *believing* without thinking logically, nor taking time to learn the facts and science, to see that their *mission* was a sham.


Books, I'm sure have been profited on, since. The much cited (and, junk-science) film "What In The World...", while "offered freely", has a hidden purpose, I would presume. In retail sales jargon, it is a sort of "loss-leader"...designed to be cheap or free, to whet appetites for something else.


Website advertising revenues.....for instance. Based on traffic, and "hits"....in the world of cons and scams and *phishing*, there are many clever people, who are very creative.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by wcitizen
 


You see what I did above though?

I made a list of all the evidence for and against. It was very compelling.

Why can't your side make a list that compelling for your argument? Why hide your evidence away?


I thought your list was quite compelling in that it was organized and verifiable. I don't understand what's so hard about admitting most if not all contrails are contrails being that there's overwhelming evidence of their existence and so little, if any, evidence that chemtrails are real or exactly resemble contrails.

I find this topic of debate to be enormously entertaining and insightful.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 


It was kind of hovering more, doing circles inside the chemtrail, and it wasn't too shiny from what I could see. I didn't spend too much time looking at it before trying to get my camera, but it was too late.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   


It seems to me the people with the most money have the most to hide. In this case it isn't us "chemtrailers." But hey, Who are you going to believe, debunkers or our lying eyes?



Its not the average chemtrailer, but money was very much part of the start of "chemtrails", and some of the major players in promoting it, were entirely about money. I have posted who they are before, and some of them who used to be friends, are enemies now, and it was all over money.

Will Thomas, Len Horowitz, Alex Jones, Anthony Hilder, G Edward Griffin, Don Croft have all been involved in scheming to make money from chemtrails. And I dont just mean happening to make money off of it, but in some cases, actively coming up with ways to promote a conspiracy to make money.

Sorry, but its your side that has people making money off of it. Those of you who believe in it are not making money, thats true. But you are all getting fleeced when you buy from those people




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



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by windword
It seems to me the people with the most money have the most to hide. In this case it isn't us "chemtrailers." But hey, Who are you going to believe, debunkers or our lying eyes?


I don't think he's suggesting YOU are shilling for money. He's suggesting you've been duped by the likes of Alex Jones, Art Bell, William Thomas, Jeff Rense, Clifford Carnicom, and Michael J. Murphy - all of whom make (or attempt to make) money from promoting fear, including fear of chemtrails.



Fair enough. But, If they are the MSNBC of chemtrails, then these ATS debunkers are the FOX news.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.


edit on Tue 31 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



From pretending like you have evidence to attacks on people's intelligence when they refuse to believe your same-old irrelevant nonsense. Pretty high-brow.

Everybody who denies chemtrails is a government agent, whether they know it or not.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
But hey, Who are you going to believe, debunkers or our lying eyes?


Believe your eyes - but only what they are telling you and not what otehrs are telling you it is you are seeing. When you see a white line across the sky your eyes tell you it is a white line across the sky - they do not tell you it is a chemtrail or a contrail.

To find out what white lines across the sky actually ARE, as opposed to what they look like, you have to study them with more than jsut your eyes - you need samples of them, mass spectrometers, atmospheric measurements, etc.

So to find out what the white lines ARE you should be looking for studies that use that sort of thing - there's been quite a lot of that done, and it all says they white lines are contrails made of water vapour from engine exhausts. There is nothing that says anything else.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by windword
It seems to me the people with the most money have the most to hide. In this case it isn't us "chemtrailers." But hey, Who are you going to believe, debunkers or our lying eyes?


I don't think he's suggesting YOU are shilling for money. He's suggesting you've been duped by the likes of Alex Jones, Art Bell, William Thomas, Jeff Rense, Clifford Carnicom, and Michael J. Murphy - all of whom make (or attempt to make) money from promoting fear, including fear of chemtrails.



Fair enough. But, If they are the MSNBC of chemtrails, then these ATS debunkers are the FOX news.


Then if you disagree with statements and can back it up, then do so. I am always open to being corrected, but for some reason, its the chemtrails who are posting incorrect things time and time again. And then when you correct them, not only are they not thankful about it, they get upset, make allegations of being a government agent, and then just go onto the next misconception they have.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by wcitizen
 


You see what I did above though?

I made a list of all the evidence for and against. It was very compelling.

Why can't your side make a list that compelling for your argument? Why hide your evidence away?


You see, you are doing it again. You're prefectly aware of why I'm not going to post about evidence on this thread - but you're trying to twist my stated reason to insinuate that I don't have any evidence.

So, this is how this particular tactic works.

Ask the person who believes in chemtrails to provide some evidence KNOWING that you and a few others will immediately jump on it, ridicule it, deny it, etc.

Do this knowing that there are more than one of you ready to pounce.

IF the poster understands your game and declines the invitation to post their evidence, then use that to try to insinuate that they don't have any.

Before you TWICE asked me to provide the evidence I believe, I stated CLEARLY what the tactic was and, on the second request, made it clear why I was declining your invitation to discuss the evidence I believe.

So - let me make it very clear this time. I do not wish to accept your invitation to discuss the evidence I find compelling with YOU or any other obvious extremist denier because I don't believe there is anything to be gained by doing so.

As far as I'm concerned, the point I was discussing has been proven conclusively. Extremist deniers can't tell if a white line in the sky is a contrail or something else, and they can't prove their own hypothesis any more than those who believe in chemtrails.

Have a nice day.
.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by wcitizen
 


You see what I did above though?

I made a list of all the evidence for and against. It was very compelling.

Why can't your side make a list that compelling for your argument? Why hide your evidence away?


You see, you are doing it again. You're prefectly aware of why I'm not going to post about evidence on this thread - but you're trying to twist my stated reason to insinuate that I don't have any evidence, or at least I don't believe my evidence is strong.

So, this is how this particular tactic works.

Ask the person who believes in chemtrails to provide some evidence KNOWING that you and a few others will immediately jump on it, ridicule it, deny it, etc.

Do this knowing that there are more than one of you ready to pounce.

IF the poster understands your game and declines the invitation to post their evidence, then use that to try to insinuate that they don't have any.

Before you TWICE asked me to provide the evidence I believe, I stated CLEARLY what the tactic was and, on the second request, made it clear why I was declining your invitation to discuss the evidence I believe.

So - let me make it very clear this time. I do not wish to accept your invitation to discuss the evidence I find compelling with YOU or any other obvious extremist denier because I don't believe there is anything to be gained by doing so.

As far as I'm concerned, the point I was discussing has been proven conclusively. Extremist deniers can't tell if a white line in the sky is a contrail or something else, and they can't prove their own hypothesis any more than those who believe in chemtrails.

Have a nice day.
.




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



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by HenryPatrick

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.


edit on Tue 31 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



From pretending like you have evidence to attacks on people's intelligence when they refuse to believe your same-old irrelevant nonsense. Pretty high-brow.

Everybody who denies chemtrails is a government agent, whether they know it or not.


To attack a "chemtrail" believer's intelligence, the believer would have to have some intelligence in the first place.

Idiots who think contrails can't persist come to mind. Or people running around calling people government agents



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



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GringoViejo


To attack a "chemtrail" believer's intelligence, they would have to have any intelligence in the first place.

Idiots who think contrails can't persist come to mind. Or people running around calling people government agents



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



Thank you for proving my point.

I rest my case.
edit on 31-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
Ask the person who believes in chemtrails to provide some evidence KNOWING that you and a few others will immediately jump on it, ridicule it, deny it, etc.


That's nonsense.

If your evidence were solid, then I would not be able to ridicule it. It would stand for itself.

Saying "I'm not giving you my evidence as you'll make fun of it" is just an admission that your evidence is either non-existent, or does not stand up to scrutiny.



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join