Dailymail UK Thread On Chemtrails: How Jet Trails Block Out The Sunshine

Originally posted by NightGypsy

But you know what would be really impressive? If you could show us that a group of planes at any specific moment is NOT equipped with aerosol spraying equipment and that the vapors forming the criss-cross patterns in the sky do NOT contain something other than typical jet fuel exhaust

In other words, you are going to believe in this secret fleet of chemplanes, even though you have never seen any such plane, until someone is able to show you every single airplane there is?

For some reason, you would rather live in world of fear, being scared of contrails and planes. Why did you never ask a chemtrail promoter to show you proof of sprayplanes?

You demand no proof of the chemtrail promoters, but your level of proof is to know that every plane out there is not up there spraying. Have you ever considering looking yourself at planes, rather that expect others to do the work for you, to rescue you out of your fear world?

....that would be great. Can you do that? If I tell you this is happening over my area right now, can you fly over here and confirm this plane isn't spraying something? Can you pluck that plane out of the sky to prove it's not equipped with aerosol spraying equipment? Can you get over here and grab a sample of any descending vapors from the plane to tell me what comprises these vapors? We already know for sure there are planes equipped with aerosol spraying equipment because cloud seeding is done in this manner. So that fact alone suggests it's not out of the realm of possibility that planes would be equipped this way and that chemicals could be dispersed over the population.

Except that you have never seen trails from cloud seeding planes. So why even bring them up? Lots of things put up aerosols into the sky, including probably the power planes used to make electrcity that allow you to be online.

Your response might be that I don't have the capability to prove chemtrails in this manner, either......and you're right, I don't.

But, nothing stops you from learning about aviation, meterology and contrails. However, you choose not to.

Chemtrail activism began for a number of reasons, most of which revolve around the emergence of health-related issues that seem to coincide with the appearance of planes creating vapor criss-cross patterns that fan out and linger in the skies . The fact that several individuals, some within the government ties, have stated there is some kind of covert operation being done across the world that involves chemicals being sprayed on unsuspecting populations has naturally caused people to seek answers.

Except that you are wrong, it was about making money. That is why the for-profit chemtrails conspiracy began. Do you not find it odd, that the people who started it, had books, dvds and home remedies for sale, as soon as they started writing about it?

And yes, the EPA does have responsibility for testing along with State environmental agencies too. You seem to think that they are not testing the air and water, when they are. Its just that the results never back up your conspiracy, so in other words they must not actually be testing.

And by the way, air quality has gotten better over the years, not worse.

reply to post by Uncinus

Debunking is about removing the bunk, it's about pointing out the errors, lies, and omissions that pepper a theory. It's about examining the evidence, and trying to determine if any of that evidence is demonstrably false.

Uncinus, I get that.....and I have no problem with that if the evidence presented to "debunk" is accurate and truthful. I only have problems with debunkers when their demeanor is rude and condescending.

There is always going to be potential for errors, lies, and omissions on either side of the coin. I've witnessed quite a bit of this behavior from the debunking camps on a number of topics. Debunkers are hardly the more reputable of the two just because they profess to "point out the errors, lies, and omissions" of a theory.

With respect to chemtrails, debunkers have done anything to "debunk" the possibility of chemtrails other than to present evidence on the science of contrails. They can't prove chemtrails don't exist, so why don't they let people pursue this issue until they get the answers they need to put them at ease?

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Debunking is about removing the bunk, it's about pointing out the errors, lies, and omissions that pepper a theory. It's about examining the evidence, and trying to determine if any of that evidence is demonstrably false.

Uncinus, I get that.....and I have no problem with that if the evidence presented to "debunk" is accurate and truthful. I only have problems with debunkers when their demeanor is rude and condescending.

Okay, so its not that you have any problems with what the "debunkers", its just that you want it all said nicer, okay fine.

So what is your take on when chemtrailers post completely dishonest things or call for pilots to be executed and planes shot down?

I could post numerous things that are dishonestly used to promote chemtrails, I actually started a thread on it as you may recall.

reply to post by NightGypsy

I could care less what the journalist's credentials are, nor does this article matter that much to me in the grand scheme, since it provides no new information on this topic that hasn't been written before, with the exception of the "30C" discrepancy, but for the sake of argument..........

If you could care less, why have you made such a big issue of it?

Tell me why we should believe it to be a "typo" as opposed to faulty research if journalists must submit their articles for proofreading and editing prior to publication?

Because both the editor and the journalist himself would notice if he had spelled "the" as "teh," but neither would have noticed if he mistook 30 for 20 or 40. He's not a meteorologist, he's a guy trying to explain something he doesn't fully understand himself to a general reading public in about 500 words. It's called "pop sci."

Are these childish points? Really?

Yes. You're leaping on to a single error (among several, incidentally) as though it proves over a century of meteorological research wrong.

Is there anything in the above paragraph that sounds completely unreasonable to you? Why do you meddle in the pursuit of these individuals' right to ask questions? If they are wrong, won't the truth be revealed? Why concern yourself with it?

Yes, but let's not get into your faulty logic. When people attempt to answer the questions that are posed, why do you call it "meddling?" They are wrong, the truth is there for everyone to see... and yet they refuse to see it. Why do I concern myself with it? Because I hate to see people living in fear based on ignorance.

Originally posted by NightGypsy
With respect to chemtrails, debunkers have done anything to "debunk" the possibility of chemtrails other than to present evidence on the science of contrails. They can't prove chemtrails don't exist, so why don't they let people pursue this issue until they get the answers they need to put them at ease?

Debunking will HELP people get the answers they need, as it eliminates the bunk that clouds the issue. So what's wrong with that?

Let's say someone says "contrails cannot last for more than 30 seconds". And on this they base their belief of chemtrails, and their search for answers.

A debunker will point out that this is wrong, that contrails as just clouds, so last as long as clouds. They remove bunk, and they help with understanding a subject. Thus they will help people find better answers quicker.

Surely you would not say it's better to let obvious errors go unchecked?

Suppose someone here said something that YOU knew to be incorrect, like "contrails are just smoke". Would you not help that person by pointing out their error?

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by DJW001

 

We can agree that the reporter typed a "3" when he or she should have typed a "4." Everything else seems to be well sourced and typo free. You still haven't explained why you linked to a paper about heterogenic ice formation.

Nice try, but you have no way of knowing if the "3" was a typo or not. Why should it be viewed as a typo as opposed to faulty research? If you guys want to scrutinize every detail presented on the chemtrail side, don't expect anything less back.

Whether or not it was a -30 or -40, does not change the fact that contrails CAN PERSIST, and have been seen to persist for decades. Besides, there is not a specific temperature anyways, thats can vary based on relative humidity, air density at that altitude, and even the operating temps of the engine.

reply to post by firepilot



If you debunkers are prolific at one thing, it's putting words into people's mouths and drawing conclusions about what they believe and what they do or don't do:

In other words, you are going to believe in this secret fleet of chemplanes, even though you have never seen any such plane, until someone is able to show you every single airplane there is?

No, not "in other words," those are your words, and they don't make any sense in relationship to my post.

For some reason, you would rather live in world of fear, being scared of contrails and planes. Why did you never ask a chemtrail promoter to show you proof of sprayplanes?

I didn't know I was dealing with the amazing Sylvia Brown who presumes to read my thoughts, know my fears and see my actions without me stating them.

Have you ever considering looking yourself at planes, rather that expect others to do the work for you, to rescue you out of your fear world?

Thank you for that suggestion, Sylvia, I'll keep that in mind in the event I ever find myself fearful and expect others to do some work for me on this issue, but for now, it doesn't apply to me.

After this post--which is plagued with failed attempts at psychic predictions of the past, present, and future--I'm convinced that you, Sylvia Brown, are a charlatan.

reply to post by firepilot

Whether or not it was a -30 or -40, does not change the fact that contrails CAN PERSIST, and have been seen to persist for decades. Besides, there is not a specific temperature anyways, thats can vary based on relative humidity, air density at that altitude, and even the operating temps of the engine.

How many times must we congratulate you for providing the science to confirm contrails?

I guess that would be a bigger accomplishment in my eyes if proving the existence of contrails was enough to disprove chemtrails....but it's not.

Nope, not by any means. However I believe in logic and thought, evidence and proof. Science and rationalism.

It could be discerned that you live in faith and fear. Faith that you are being sprayed, and fear when you seen contrails or airplanes. You would have more in common with her though, taking an active part in a hoax and having faith in nefarious chemicals that are apparently so devious they never show up in testing.. Even though you have never seen any evidence of modified planes, you believe in them and have faith that they exist. You prefer the world of the unseen, and prefer to live in that world

You know there are hundreds of thousands of photos of aircraft on airliners.net? You are welcome to go look on there for sprayplanes. Think you will ever try to learn about aviation or meterology, or does the world of conspiracies and ignorance hold more appeal?

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by firepilot

 

Whether or not it was a -30 or -40, does not change the fact that contrails CAN PERSIST, and have been seen to persist for decades. Besides, there is not a specific temperature anyways, thats can vary based on relative humidity, air density at that altitude, and even the operating temps of the engine.

How many times must we congratulate you for providing the science to confirm contrails?

I guess that would be a bigger accomplishment in my eyes if proving the existence of contrails was enough to disprove chemtrails....but it's not.

Well, its people on your side that insist over and over, that contrails can not persist at all. Its the rare chemtrailer that admits to it.

reply to post by DJW001

Yes, but let's not get into your faulty logic. When people attempt to answer the questions that are posed, why do you call it "meddling?" They are wrong, the truth is there for everyone to see... and yet they refuse to see it. Why do I concern myself with it? Because I hate to see people living in fear based on ignorance.

I have provided no faulty logic and you have done nothing except to provide the science involving contrails.

You have not proven that chemtrails do not exist. No one has provided 100% proof of anything either way. You can pretend like you have, if it makes you feel better and you glean satisfaction from it, but it's not the truth.

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by firepilot

 

If you debunkers are prolific at one thing, it's putting words into people's mouths and drawing conclusions about what they believe and what they do or don't do:

There is a small number of debunkers here who seem to thrive on being rude, arrogant, and conceited. There are also some very good debunkers, like Uncinus, who will actually teach you something and thats because he doesn't waste time exhibiting those unsavoury attributes I mentioned. The debunkers who like to be offensive claim to be here to enlighten us "chemmies" about our misguided belief in chemtrails, but who has ever listend to somebody who to takes continuas shots at one's intelligence and beliefs?

If these debunkers actually wanted to change peoples minds they would post civily and patiently, not with rudeness and arrogance.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

If these debunkers actually wanted to change peoples minds they would post civily and patiently, not with rudeness or arrogance.

Last I checked, it was the chemtrails who seem to have cornered the marked on namecalling, with terms like shill, disinfo agent, paid government agent, for anyone who does not believe in chemtrails, or that dares to explain the hoaxes and misidentified photos.

One can be nice as can be to chemtrailers, but it will not matter anyways, since if evidence and substance was the actual concern, that would be debated regardless.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker

If these debunkers actually wanted to change peoples minds they would post civily and patiently, not with rudeness and arrogance.

Indeed.

reply to post by firepilot

Last I checked, it was the chemtrails who seem to have cornered the marked on name calling, with terms like shilli, disinfo agent, paid government agent.

I can't imagine where one might come up with those names.

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

If these debunkers actually wanted to change peoples minds they would post civily and patiently, not with rudeness and arrogance.

Indeed.

Isnt it a bit uncivil, to take part in some evidenceless conspiracy, that accuses thousands of people, especially pilots, of trying to harm and even murder people? Isnt there a chemtrail site that has asked if pilots should be executed?

If you all were actually interested in being civil, you would have gathered evidence, before joining in some conspiracy that accused the aviation sector of some vast conspriracy to harm people

reply to post by afw2121


Good post. While I'm not of the 'chemtrailer' crowd (gee, have you noticed? ) I definitely understand people's concerns over persistent contrails. They're ugly, and the problem is only going to increase as new airplanes with High Bypass Turbofan engines are made.

Originally posted by firepilot

Isnt it a bit uncivil, to take part in some evidenceless conspiracy, that accuses thousands of people, especially pilots, of trying to harm and even murder people? Isnt there a chemtrail site that has asked if pilots should be executed?

So what. I have never accused a pilot of anything and the site you talk of I have never even seen or would I bother wasting a second on it.

Originally posted by firepilot
If you all were actually interested in being civil, you would have gathered evidence, before joining in some conspiracy that accused the aviation sector of some vast conspriracy to harm people

So theorizing is being uncivil? Please explain how?

I'm very sorry our theorizing is soo offensive to you that you must come to these forums and post rudely and dismissively to everyone who believes in chemtrails.

You know i hear that we don't have the intelligence to understand and therefore nothing we say or post can be classed as prof after all we are just layman normal folk who don't understand the big wide world and what goes on is above our pay grade
Steven Hawkins considered one of the greatest minds of our time created a theory on black holes that all matter that entered the hole the information would be lost forever and all that would remain is hawking's radiation this has been classed as factual science for the last 30 years and has been proven wrong by a man who spent most of his life as a plumber.
John Preskill when he saw a lecture by hawking's he made a bet that he could prove him wrong and now 30 years later he has [i know it was life changing for him and he restudied and is now a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology]
now i know this is off thread to a degree but i use it to point out that even the smartest minds can be wrong and the fact that the person who proved t started his working life as a plumber [a layman]
so don't discount someone because they are a layman because a layman has one advantage over you he can admit when he is wrong and therefore has the ability to learn.

reply to post by djcarlosa


Great post.

After a lifetime of experience some people can be pretty loath to admit what they learned and believed they're entire life was wrong. Has something to do with pride and ego I think.