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.

 

Excerpts From One Mans Video Diary

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

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.


Nice dodge on not giving an answer. You avoid commenting at all cost on what Tanker Eneny, Will Thomas, Tony Hilder and Ted Gunderson do, its like you are playing defense for them

yes, i will continue to believe that every contrail I see, is a contrail unless proof is given. If I suspected some were not contrails, and I have no actual proof of anything different, thats called Paranoia.

Whats next, are you going to tell us that ship smokestacks are a spraying conspiracy too, because UK ships did a test in the 1960s? Do you believe that not every ship exhaust is real exhaust and some some ships are spraying us?

edit on 6-6-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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."


well, hea sked you if you had evidence they were anything but farings and you said you had evidence that the British did tests in the 60's.

Either you were linking the two together or you were making a totally unrelated response to his question and thereby trying to divert away from it,

Which is it?



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
Nice dodge on not giving an answer. You avoid commenting at all cost on what Tanker Eneny, Will Thomas, Tony Hilder and Ted Gunderson do, its like you are playing defense for them and steering it away at all cost.


I already told you I don't know any of those people even are. That's why I don't give a damn what you have to say about them. What you're doing is called a straw-man argument.



yes, i will continue to believe that every contrail I see, is a contrail unless proof is given. If I suspected some were not contrails, and I have no actual proof of anything different, thats called Paranoia.


You can call it paranoia, and I can call your faith naivete. You still have a belief that is not proven either way, when you blindly assume they are all just contrails.



Whats next, are you going to tell us that ship smokestacks are a spraying conspiracy too, because UK ships did a test in the 1960s? Do you believe that not every ship exhaust is real exhaust and some some ships are spraying us?


Why would they use ships when planes would be much more efficient?



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirCoxone
well, hea sked you if you had evidence they were anything but farings and you said you had evidence that the British did tests in the 60's.


You must have some reading comprehension problem going on because my posts have been worded in such a way that you have no reason to be so confused.


Either you were linking the two together or you were making a totally unrelated response to his question and thereby trying to divert away from it,

Which is it?


I already responded to both of those on the previous page. Again, read.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I just read, I have no comprehension difficulties.


He said

'do you have evidence they are anything else?' (revering to the farings)

You quoted this exact sentence and in direct reply stated

'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'

So, either your answer was linking the farings and the British government, or your reply had nothing to do with the exact quote you were replying to and as such were diverting.

It is one or the other



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirCoxone
So, either your answer was linking the farings and the British government, or your reply had nothing to do with the exact quote you were replying to and as such were diverting.

It is one or the other


He was diverting by bringing up the farings in the first place, which I had said nothing about.

Either one or the other my ass. It's funny how I'm the one diverting when you guys won't actually stay on topic about anything I actually do post.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
So, either your answer was linking the farings and the British government, or your reply had nothing to do with the exact quote you were replying to and as such were diverting.

It is one or the other


He was diverting by bringing up the farings in the first place, which I had said nothing about.

Either one or the other my ass. It's funny how I'm the one diverting when you guys won't actually stay on topic about anything I actually do post.


No the farings were not a diversion

You posted a video up as evidence.

The video marked as fact that the plane was spraying chemtrails from nozzles.

There is no evidence the farings were nozzles, these farings are on every single on of that jet.

The farings are not a diversion at all because you posted the video and held it up as evidence. It was pointed out to you that the video was fake, you asked why and evidence was given, in the fact they are standard farings, as far as any reasonable person would accept (yes yes they may really be secret spray nozzles made to look exactly like every other plane out there but lets be reasonable now, there is zero evidence to suggest that).


The video you posted offers no evidence that they are spraying chemicals. Everytime we get to the nitty gritty of the fact the video is blatantly a dishonest representation you divert to talking about the British Government, which is totally unrelated.

Just accept that the video is a crock of crap, made to fit an agenda and we can move on.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
So, either your answer was linking the farings and the British government, or your reply had nothing to do with the exact quote you were replying to and as such were diverting.

It is one or the other


He was diverting by bringing up the farings in the first place, which I had said nothing about.

Either one or the other my ass. It's funny how I'm the one diverting when you guys won't actually stay on topic about anything I actually do post.


Diverting??

Interesting, since YOU posted that Tanker Enemy video in this thread. Its telling that when the falsehoods in the video you posted are exposed, then its just "diverting".

Commented on hoaxes in a video that you posted, is entirely fair game. If you do not want that video commented on, then dont post it.
edit on 6-6-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You still have a belief that is not proven either way, when you blindly assume they are all just contrails.


I think I have found the problem here. When communicating with you, there seems to be a gap of information on both sides. If you truly are interested in adult like discussions on this topic, I suggest you try to understand this:

Contrails are a proven entity that exists on this planet. They are repeatable. They are visible. There is a lot of science to explain their existence. In essence, they are an undisputed fact. Undisputed.

So for anyone to look at a line in the sky and automatically assume that it's a contrail, is perfectly acceptable. It will remain that way until someone proves that what we see as a contrail is actually something different. And by contrail, I mean white line in the sky that comes out of the ass end of a plane way up in the air.

Unless you are purposefully trying to muddy the waters, I beg you to stop bringing things like cloud seeding into a chemtrail discussion. It does nothing but drive the topic further into loonyland. I am a firm believer that what we see are contrails, but I also would love to see someone get a high altitude sample of a supposed chemtrial and have it tested. I am not afraid of the results and would be happy either way the results fell.

remember, contrails=real, chemtrail=unproven as of yet. (that's why it's being discussed on a conspiracy website)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirCoxone
No the farings were not a diversion

You posted a video up as evidence.


Really? Can you show me where I said it was evidence of anything please?



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
I think I have found the problem here. When communicating with you, there seems to be a gap of information on both sides. If you truly are interested in adult like discussions on this topic, I suggest you try to understand this:

Contrails are a proven entity that exists on this planet. They are repeatable. They are visible. There is a lot of science to explain their existence. In essence, they are an undisputed fact. Undisputed.


Right, but this goes back to claiming that coyotes don't exist because domesticated dogs are already proven to exist.

That argument doesn't make a damned bit of sense either, does it?

Because it is not an issue of either/or. Both can exist simultaneously. Why don't you try to understand that for a change?

If you claim you don't need evidence to prove any given trail behind a plane is actually a contrail, then you must not need any evidence to prove the US/UK is dumping more biological agents again to test them on people either, because they already admitted to it and we know these things happen and are lied about.




So for anyone to look at a line in the sky and automatically assume that it's a contrail, is perfectly acceptable.


As long as you accept that it would only be an opinion/belief, and not a proven fact.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
No the farings were not a diversion

You posted a video up as evidence.


Really? Can you show me where I said it was evidence of anything please?


Why else did you post it? I am sure you will come up with some disingenuous reason and make up some tale about how it wasn't meant to be evidence but I guarantee if it hadn't been met with the response it was you would be holding it up now as such.

And even id it wasn't 'evidence' correcting the video to point out they are not spray nozzles but farings is certainly not diversion. You should know, you are a master of it.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
No the farings were not a diversion

You posted a video up as evidence.


Really? Can you show me where I said it was evidence of anything please?


So is there any evidence?

What would you be able to point to and say is evidence of the chemtrail theory? Anything?



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


see this is where you get fuzzy, you admit that contrails exist, and they are real, but you want to just make a leap of faith and say so are chemtrails. It doesn't work like that. Contrails are proven, there is science to back them up. Chemtrails are speculative. They are theory until proven to be just as real as chemtrails.

Looking up and saying you seen anything other than contrails is speculating, but saying you see contrails is scientifically sound.

You need to get past blind faith and move towards scientific fact. Until that point, all your banter and all your cleaver innuendo fall far short of anything real.

For heaven sakes, even the word chemtrail gets underlined with a red line to show it's not real.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by bsbray11
 


see this is where you get fuzzy, you admit that contrails exist, and they are real, but you want to just make a leap of faith and say so are chemtrails. It doesn't work like that. Contrails are proven, there is science to back them up. Chemtrails are speculative. They are theory until proven to be just as real as chemtrails.

Looking up and saying you seen anything other than contrails is speculating, but saying you see contrails is scientifically sound.

You need to get past blind faith and move towards scientific fact. Until that point, all your banter and all your cleaver innuendo fall far short of anything real.

For heaven sakes, even the word chemtrail gets underlined with a red line to show it's not real.


Its more of a he posts A, it gets exposed, then instead of discussing that..
He moved onto B..and when thats debunked,..
Its then C, then D, then E, then F, but never actually debating the merits of any of those. Just throwing up the next youtube link, or patent, or chemtrail site



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join