Some More Chemtrail/Contrail/Cloud Pics?

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Is nobody seeing what I'm seeing in Pic #4? It is the same as Homeboy that got his YouTube video taken down!

At the 11 o'clock position you see the ensuing chaos that is Nibiru! I know this is a Chemtrail / Contrail thread but you have clearly captured what appears to be Nibiru / Elenin. Maybe I'm nuts...........scratch that, I'am nuts; however, that is another topic! Go back and check your other pics, could be more!

Originally posted by wcitizen

Thank you for proving my point.

I rest my case.

Great, now the PTB can concoct the most evil yet obvious plot, safe in the knowledge that nobody is going to say anything about it because they don't like people calling them names.

So you're just going to let the whole matter drop? Ignore the trillion dollar covert geoengineering project that's poisoning the earth, because you don't like being mocked?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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?

Same tactic, yawn.


I asked you to prove your hypothesis many posts ago, and I asked you again later on. Surprise, surprise, you haven't replied

WW, this is one of your favorite tactics....it's called 'when you're in a corner try to divert attention by turning the tables on the other person'. It's also in the disinfo tactics manual.

You haven't provided proof because you can't. You can't prove it because it's a hypothesis, just as chemtrails are a hypothesis.

You seem to have trouble comprehending that I'm not stating chemtrails are FACT. I'm saying I 100% believe they exist based on evidence which I find compelling and which is to me beyond reasonable doubt.

Now, where's your proof that your hypothesis isn't a hypothesis but is FACT?

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


I can't help but to notice that you replied to a very small portion of my post and immediately in that reply challenged me to prove a point I had made. I can't help but to feel that either you agreed with the rest of my post entirely and only took issue with the part you quoted; or, that you simply wish to avoid discussion regarding the rest of my post for an as of yet unclear reason.

Before I offer an answer to your request I would ask that you kindly address the perceptual issues I raised as they are very pertinent to the thread in general.

I am just asking here why is the sky always washed out and whitish looking from the ground up?
I have been on this planet for over 50 years and for the last 15 years I have noticed that we have definitely lost our beautiful azure sky.
Where is the blue?
S&F to the OP I am also in Ontario here.
Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Iwinder


Did you care to check your weather? What's the humidity, there?

www.theweathernetwork.com...

How about, a live (current) satellite view? See if we can find one........

reply to post by wcitizen


WCitizen as you continually quote the disinformation manual I thought I would pose a question to you.

Could the vehement support of any subject with equally vehement denial of often clear cut scientific evidence to the contrary not also be proof of a disinformation campaign?

Any group or individual dedicated to causing ATS to appear an unreliable source for information would certainly post in the manner I described above. The goal being to cause those of us on ATS which seek to deny ignorance to be unjustly associated with those perpetrating the campaign of disinfo and thereby weaken ATS as a whole.

Do you agree?

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by wcitizen

Thank you for proving my point.

I rest my case.

Great, now the PTB can concoct the most evil yet obvious plot, safe in the knowledge that nobody is going to say anything about it because they don't like people calling them names.

Nice try again to belittle the chemtrail believer. This time the tactic is make them seem a moral coward.

I see no pointt in discussing this with YOU or any other extremist denier. I consider it would be a complete waste of my time. I prefer to channel my energy into more constructive and worthwhile areas with regard to chemtrails.

Now, you can make of that whatever you will, your opinion is of no interest to me.

So you're just going to let the whole matter drop? Ignore the trillion dollar covert geoengineering project that's poisoning the earth, because you don't like being mocked?

The above sentence completely proves my point at the beginning of this post. It illustrates perfectly why I consider it would be a waste of time and energy to discuss this with you.

Your response was SO predictable.

What arrogance you show to conclude that because I don't want to discuss this withyou i'm letting the whole matter drop. Another disinfo tactic, deliberately misinterpret a statement to draw from it a false conclusion in order to attempt to belittle/ridicule the person in question.

You opinion is of no importance to me whatsoever. I feel no need to justify myself to someone for whose opinon I have no respect.

Originally posted by HenryPatrick
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.

Thanks, just trying to get some idea of how uniform the many orb reports I've seen are. The video I posted showed no hovering, but it also showed that if they were balloons they would be driven by the wind in the same direction and at the same speed (since obviously they're the exact same size and therefore very near each other).

I'll also add that I saw an orb exactly like the ones in the video, right over my head, and trailing something rectangular behind it. I had my still camera in hand, but in the moment it took to raise it to my eye the orb and rectangular object were gone from the sky. It was a clear day with no discernible wind. The thing just disappeared.

For any who will now question my sanity, my vision, my memory (it was only a few years ago), or my honesty, see the quote in my signature. (it's a generic quote, a composite, not a verbatim quote)

Originally posted by Iwinder
Where is the blue?
S&F to the OP I am also in Ontario here.

there seems to be plenty of blue sky over large chunks of Ontario - here the modis picture from Terra earlier today for the area just north of the great lakes - rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov...

there's obviously plenty of cloud and a large band of cirrus, but also a great deal of blue sky.

reply to post by wcitizen


I'm telling you, the rest of this post (that I didn't quote) does not display critical thinking, nor a reasonable and rational "argument"....since, you stated clearly, it is your "belief"....right after saying, that you aren't "claiming chemtrails 100%"

It is pointless, with that definition, textbook even, of a demand to "prove a negative".

I asked you to prove your hypothesis many posts ago...

And, I don't have a "hypothesis"...this is YOUR deflection tactic, and is quite evident to everyone else reading.


The FACTS are (not, "hypothesis") contrails are condensation of water ice, that are no different, in composition and behavior, than cirrus clouds.

This is established science, from observation and study for decades. Furthermore, the actual contrails that are being observed, and called "something else"....THAT is the hypothesis!! THOSE assertions...burden of proof is on those claimants, not on people who can clearly see that contrails look, form, and behave in the same way they always have. Since there is nothing, at all, "different" (from simple visual inspections), then, again.....burden on those saying otherwise, RE: what they *might* be composed of.


Logically, the methods necessary to endeavor to prove that 'hypothesis' involve proper investigation and testing, of samples, and the obtaining of other evidence, which would include photos that are incontrovertible.

SO far, bupkis. Nada. Zilch.

reply to post by JaeBea


Hi, good eye. I never noticed that spot in that pic until you mentioned it. I would guess that it is a lens flare. I am not very experienced with photography, but I have had other pictures from my Iphone have the same spot show up in the picture. There is more information on lens flares in the link I provided in my OP to the other thread I created with more pictures of the sky. Feel free to check it out. You will probably like the pics and it will perhaps explain what showed up in pic number 4 of this thread. Who knows, maybe I found something without even knowing it. Thanks for the reply.

reply to post by Dilligaf28


The part of your post I responded to was honestly the only part of your post that stood out to me. I figured that was the overall intention of your post (to claim that the skeptics have provided undeniable proof and that the believers are completely incorrect due to the so called proof the skeptics have provided). I have no problem answering any questions you may have, but I must apologize I am not exactly sure what it is you are asking me. Since I asked you a question, I guess it's only fair you ask me a question as well. Please specify exactly what it is you would like me to respond to, as I said I am not quite sure what you are asking.

ETA: I would also appreciate an answer to the original question I asked you in reference to your original post once we clarify exactly it is you would like me to respond to. Please keep in mind I just got home so and have some business to attend to so I may not be able to respond to you right away.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by wcitizen

 

WCitizen as you continually quote the disinformation manual I thought I would pose a question to you.

Could the vehement support of any subject with equally vehement denial of often clear cut scientific evidence to the contrary not also be proof of a disinformation campaign?.

Any group or individual dedicated to causing ATS to appear an unreliable source for information would certainly post in the manner I described above. The goal being to cause those of us on ATS which seek to deny ignorance to be unjustly associated with those perpetrating the campaign of disinfo and thereby weaken ATS as a whole.

Do you agree?

I find your statement is a bit short on detail and rather abstract, but, assuming I've understood it correctly, of course, I agree that's a possibility.

Originally posted by weedwhacker


And, I don't have a "hypothesis"...this is YOUR deflection tactic, and is quite evident to everyone else reading.


The FACTS are (not, "hypothesis") contrails are condensation of water ice, that are no different, in composition and behavior, than cirrus clouds.

This is established science, from observation and study for decades. Furthermore, the actual contrails that are being observed, and called "something else"....THAT is the hypothesis!! THOSE assertions...burden of proof is on those claimants, not on people who can clearly see that contrails look, form, and behave in the same way they always have. Since there is nothing, at all, "different" (from simple visual inspections), then, again.....burden on those saying otherwise, RE: what they *might* be composed of.


Logically, the methods necessary to endeavor to prove that 'hypothesis' involve proper investigation and testing, of samples, and the obtaining of other evidence, which would include photos that are incontrovertible.

SO far, bupkis. Nada. Zilch.

No ww, you misunderstand. The hypothesis I'm referring to is the which which posits that 'chemtrails don't exist'.

But never mind, ww. You can't prove it anyway, because it's a hypothesis, not a fact.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Iwinder

 

Did you care to check your weather? What's the humidity, there?

www.theweathernetwork.com...

How about, a live (current) satellite view? See if we can find one........

Are you asking for the weather reports for the last 15 years here? White sky and Google is your friend.
I mentioned in my post that this is ongoing and always white sky's and no azure at all from the ground looking up.
This is not imagination this is observation during the past 15 years.
Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by wcitizen

No ww, you misunderstand. The hypothesis I'm referring to is the which which posits that 'chemtrails don't exist'

Yeah we all understand that - and so does WW.

It is not a hypothesis tho - it is a paraphrase of thefact that there's no evidence that chemtails do exist.

They hypothesis is actually "there is no evidence that chemtrails exist" - and there is plenty to support that hypothesis.

If debunkers get lazy and write it as "chemtrails don't exist" then that's just that - laziness - and perfectly understandable as a response to the constant stream af non-evidence and argumetn fomr ignorance that the chemtrail congregation serve up.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
[

Yeah we all understand that - and so does WW.

It is not a hypothesis tho - it is a paraphrase of thefact that there's no evidence that chemtails do exist.

They hypothesis is actually "there is no evidence that chemtrails exist" - and there is plenty to support that hypothesis.

If debunkers get lazy and write it as "chemtrails don't exist" then that's just that - laziness - and perfectly understandable as a response to the constant stream af non-evidence and argumetn fomr ignorance that the chemtrail congregation serve up.

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

Fine. Thanks for clarifying that that is the hypothesis you subscribe to, it proves my point.

The hypotheses which you believe is: 'There is no evidence that chemtrails exist'.

Other people believe in a different hypothesis which is: 'There is compelling evidence that chemtrails exist.'

So there are those who believe in the first hypothesis and those who believe in the second, which is exactly the point I was making.

I'm respecting a clear distinction here between 'evidence' and 'proof', btw.

reply to post by wcitizen


Well again there is an element of laziness on my part - by "evidence" I mean credible and verifiable evidence.

the word "evidence" could mean anything - someone saying chemtails exist clearly IS "evidence" - but as far as I am concerned it is not credible nor verifiable.