Excerpts From One Mans Video Diary

Originally posted by firepilot
I do not deny any of that, but what does it have to do with prominent, irregular or persistent contrails?

Dumping chemical and biological agents onto civilians just to see what happens, doesn't have much of anything to do with contrails. That's the whole point.

You guys always say "contrails!" "contrails!" "contrails!" when you have no idea what you're staring at. You make the argument that it can't be anything else, like chemical sprays, because you don't have evidence of anything else. Well now you do have evidence of other things being dumped. But you still refuse to acknowledge that you can't tell it apart from a normal contrail just by looking at it.

Originally posted by bsbray11


He said there weren't any spray nozzles. Again, he said there weren't any spray nozzles. Let me say it a third time in an effort that it might sink in: he said there weren't any spray nozzles.


So then let's revisit my response and see if nothing clicks for you again, and it probably won't:

"How do you know that chemtrailing planes use nozzles, btw? Can you show me a picture of what they look like, or are you just making stuff up again?"


On one hand he's claiming chemtrails don't exist, on the other hand he's claiming they must use spray nozzles that look a certain way. Please don't make me repeat this until it finally makes sense to you, because if you don't even try to understand it, then you are hopeless. In other words he is making stuff up, because he is trying to force assumptions as if they are based on some kind of fact, when in reality he hypocritically doesn't even believe in what he's talking about. Any number of mechanisms could be used and his reasoning would be out the window, because he never had any actual evidence for what he was saying in the first place. He even admits he doesn't have proof. You know, the burden of proof isn't always on the person you disagree with. It's on whoever is making a positive claim. I'm not. I'm questioning you guys' "logic," which hardly exists in itself.

Your response is non sequitur.


He mentioned there were no spray nozzles because the video you linked falsely claimed there were. He did not bring spray nozzles up. The video you posted to use as evidence falsely claimed that there were spray nozzles on the back of the plane. There weren't.

The video had been tampered with to fit an agenda but you won't even acknowledge that. You talk about burden of proof here but the only reason spray nozzles were mentioned was because the video you posted as evidence was fake.

No one here is claiming they have to come from nozzles, they are simply debunking your fake video.


Please do not ignore this last sentence, if you do then you are making a statement to everyone.

Do you accept the video you posted was tampered with and they were farings not spray nozzles?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by firepilot
I do not deny any of that, but what does it have to do with prominent, irregular or persistent contrails?

Dumping chemical and biological agents onto civilians just to see what happens, doesn't have much of anything to do with contrails. That's the whole point.

You guys always say "contrails!" "contrails!" "contrails!" when you have no idea what you're staring at. You make the argument that it can't be anything else, like chemical sprays, because you don't have evidence of anything else. Well now you do have evidence of other things being dumped. But you still refuse to acknowledge that you can't tell it apart from a normal contrail just by looking at it.

Again, its YOUR SIDE that screams that contrails are something else. Its your side that says you can look at contrails and analyze them. Its your side that says contrails are barium, aluminum, strontium, oily stuff, chemgoo, virus, and that you can tell from looking. Quit projecting your sides insanity on the debunkers.

I do notice that when you asked or proof of hoaxing, and when it was presented, you totally steered it away from that, without a single comment or criticism on the shenanigans of Will Thomas, Tony Hilder and Ted Gunderson.

And no, you have not presented evidence of anything BEING dumped. You have listed articles that detailed tests in the 1960s to see how chemical weapons would spread over the UK in a war with the Soviets.

Originally posted by SirCoxone
He mentioned there were no spray nozzles because the video you linked falsely claimed there were.

And this is the point at which I asked him how he would even know what a spray nozzle on a chemtrailing plane would look like, since he simultaneously believes they don't even exist.

Let me know what part of this you are having difficulty understanding.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
He mentioned there were no spray nozzles because the video you linked falsely claimed there were.

And this is the point at which I asked him how he would even know what a spray nozzle on a chemtrailing plane would look like, since he simultaneously believes they don't even exist.

Let me know what part of this you are having difficulty understanding.

I see you ignored the last sentence.

I knew you would.

Originally posted by firepilot
Again, its YOUR SIDE that screams that contrails are something else.

Nope, sorry. You have already weaseled in your a priori assumption that they're all automatically contrails until proven otherwise. That's not how it works. You don't actually have evidence that every white trail behind a plane is simply a contrail, do you? Of course not, because that would require a study of ridiculous proportions and you still wouldn't have a complete look at what every flight is dumping, if anything.

And no, you have not presented evidence of anything BEING dumped. You have listed articles that detailed tests in the 1960s to see how chemical weapons would spread over the UK in a war with the Soviets.

...in which they dumped chemical and biological agents over their own civilian population, and lied about it.

Originally posted by SirCoxone
I see you ignored the last sentence.

I knew you would.

And what gave you that tip off? The fact that it's irrelevant to anything I've personally posted?

That's what happens when you blatantly introduce straw-man arguments to side-track the topic.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
I see you ignored the last sentence.

I knew you would.

And what gave you that tip off? The fact that it's irrelevant to anything I've personally posted?

That's what happens when you blatantly introduce straw-man arguments to side-track the topic.

Irrelevant part from the fact that you posted it and held it up as evidence and when people said it was faked, you asked for evidence, which was given and you consequently ignored you mean?

Do you accept the video was tampered with and they were farings not spray nozzles?

Originally posted by SirCoxone
Irrelevant part from the fact that you posted it and held it up as evidence and when people said it was faked, you asked for evidence, which was given and you consequently ignored you mean?

I asked repeatedly for evidence and the most I got was a guy in the video making a sarcastic remark. I can only imagine that sarcasm would constitute "proof" of anything to an internet forum troll.

That plane may very well be leaving nothing but a normal contrail, but if it were left up to you people to actually prove that, from what you've shown so far, you would be screwed.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
Irrelevant part from the fact that you posted it and held it up as evidence and when people said it was faked, you asked for evidence, which was given and you consequently ignored you mean?

I asked repeatedly for evidence and the most I got was a guy in the video making a sarcastic remark. I can only imagine that sarcasm would constitute "proof" of anything to an internet forum troll.

That plane may very well be leaving nothing but a normal contrail, but if it were left up to you people to actually prove that, from what you've shown so far, you would be screwed.

Do you accept they were farings and not spray nozzles on the plane?

Originally posted by SirCoxone
Do you accept they were farings and not spray nozzles on the plane?

Do I accept that they look like farings? Yes.

Do I accept that they couldn't possibly be anything else on your word alone? No.

If it were up to me, I'd make all chemtrailing planes look like every other plane, and disguise the nozzles. But that's just what someone with some sense about them would do, so I don't expect any "debunkers" here to think of that one.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
Do you accept they were farings and not spray nozzles on the plane?

Do I accept that they look like farings? Yes.

Do I accept that they couldn't possibly be anything else on your word alone? No.

If it were up to me, I'd make all chemtrailing planes look like every other plane, and disguise the nozzles. But that's just what someone with some sense about them would do, so I don't expect any "debunkers" here to think of that one.

back to the robot cat.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
Do you accept they were farings and not spray nozzles on the plane?

Do I accept that they look like farings? Yes.

Do I accept that they couldn't possibly be anything else on your word alone? No.

If it were up to me, I'd make all chemtrailing planes look like every other plane, and disguise the nozzles. But that's just what someone with some sense about them would do, so I don't expect any "debunkers" here to think of that one.

Anyway, ignoring robot cats. You accept they look like farings that are on every other one of the same plane.

Why did the makers of the video that you offered up as evidence of chemtrails mark them as nozzles. Of course they might be spray nozzles, the tree I see out of my window might be a hologram. It's not like they said -- these may be spray nozzles but they look like farings, they blatantly tried to represent them as spray nozzles and stated it as fact.

Also, what do you think about the audio on that video?

Anyway I have to go out, my handler is waiting in a car park with a brown paper bag of cash to pay me for writing on an internet forum.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
Do you accept they were farings and not spray nozzles on the plane?

Do I accept that they look like farings? Yes.

Do I accept that they couldn't possibly be anything else on your word alone? No.

If it were up to me, I'd make all chemtrailing planes look like every other plane, and disguise the nozzles. But that's just what someone with some sense about them would do, so I don't expect any "debunkers" here to think of that one.

Do you have "EVIDENCE" that they are anything else? And we are back to "If" for the next sentence. Having no evidence, and If statements. are not proof. Anyone can speculate and use their imaginations.

Tell us what you think of Tanker Enemy claiming they are spray nozzles.

Originally posted by SirCoxone
back to the robot cat.

Which was never, ever a logical argument. Neither is mockery, insults or sarcasm.

Why did the makers of the video that you offered up as evidence of chemtrails mark them as nozzles.

I wouldn't presume to know.

Also, what do you think about the audio on that video?

You mean the guy making sarcastic remarks? It's a guy making sarcastic remarks. When science as we know it is rewritten so that that constitutes hard evidence of anything, then you can use it to make your case.

Anyway I have to go out, my handler is waiting in a car park with a brown paper bag of cash to pay me for writing on an internet forum.

And once again, sarcasm, mockery or insults have never been, and never will be, an actual logical argument for anything.

Originally posted by firepilot
Do you have "EVIDENCE" that they are anything else?

I have evidence that the UK government at least has dumped lots of crap into the air that wasn't just normal contrails, yes, and I posted it earlier several times.

You will still stick your head in the sand and go on pretending that every single trail behind every single plane must just be a contrail nonetheless, huh?

Tell us what you think of Tanker Enemy claiming they are spray nozzles.

I think it's absolutely no different than what you do here every day.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
back to the robot cat.

Which was never, ever a logical argument. Neither is mockery, insults or sarcasm.

.

Hey, it was you that responded to me in another thread with the words.

I know why you're here and it disgusts me. (paraphrase, I will dig out the exact quote if you want).

Just playing my part.


People in glass houses...............

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by firepilot
Do you have "EVIDENCE" that they are anything else?

I have evidence that the UK government at least has dumped lots of crap into the air that wasn't just normal contrails, yes, and I posted it earlier several times.

You will still stick your head in the sand and go on pretending that every single trail behind every single plane must just be a contrail nonetheless, huh?

Tell us what you think of Tanker Enemy claiming they are spray nozzles.

I think it's absolutely no different than what you do here every day.

So you are linking your artivle about the British governments clandestine tests in the 60's as evidence that they are not farings on the plane??????

best yet.

Originally posted by SirCoxone
So you are linking your artivle about the British governments clandestine tests in the 60's as evidence that they are not farings on the plane??????

best yet.

Not hardly, but I guess this is the best response you could come up with.

Again, that's a "no."