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.
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.
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."
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
Originally posted by bsbray11
You still have a belief that is not proven either way, when you blindly assume they are all just contrails.
Originally posted by SirCoxone
No the farings were not a diversion
You posted a video up as evidence.
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.
So for anyone to look at a line in the sky and automatically assume that it's a contrail, is perfectly acceptable.
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?
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?
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.