Spotted an aircraft leaving a trail?

Nice on Uncinus, thanks for the input. Looking at each program it is quite frightning how many aircraft are in the sky at any given time.

Originally posted by Solasis
By "most observers" I mean most of the first page. The evidence is right there. I know this because I actually read the thread.

Please post said evidence. After 5 re-reads I still come to the conclusion you didn't read it or missunderstood it.

Originally posted by Solasis
And seriously, you're calling me out on "airplane trails"? He said that the airplane left a contrail in the very first sentence. So I summarized. Dear god, I thought you had read the first post!

edit on 25-7-2011 by Solasis because: (no reason given)

Thats right, I am calling you on it. You are right that he mentioned a contrail in the first sentence, but thats not what you said, is it?

Originally posted by Solasis
You put "airplane trails" and "suspicious in the sky" in the same paragraph -- not directly linked, but very clearly associated with each other.

You can continue to try to twist this however you like, it won't change the fact that you either didn't read the OP or didn't understand what you read.

Originally posted by Solasis
Of course you didn't mention chemtrails, or ask about the science. You did, however, mention a contrail, and the possibility of being suspicious of it. The premises are right there in the post. the conclusion is "chemtrails".

This just further proves my point. Completely out of context. Nowhere does it say in the OP that he was suspicious of the contrail he'd seen. He said it made him think of this forum. The only place the word "suspicion" was used was to tell people if they are suspicious of something in the sky they can use this tool.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


First page. Not first post.

Everything else you've said... Well, let's just say that if I deserve accusations of trolling via nitpicking, you do at least as much.

Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

First page. Not first post.

Really? Then please point out the post I am missing that refers to this reply of yours.

Originally posted by Solasis
Of course you didn't mention chemtrails, or ask about the science. You did, however, mention a contrail, and the possibility of being suspicious of it. The premises are right there in the post. the conclusion is "chemtrails".

Originally posted by Solasis
Everything else you've said... Well, let's just say that if I deserve accusations of trolling via nitpicking, you do at least as much.

edit on 25-7-2011 by Solasis because: (no reason given)

First time I've ever been accused of being a troll.

Maybe just admit you were wrong instead of asking the OP to apologize for you're not understanding his post.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


Dude, just... come on. I am talking about the first replies which had more content than "Neat website! I saw a contrail too!" Both of the first replies with actual content thought that he was talking about contrails. And I'd wager that the guy who directed him to learn more in the geo-engineering forum (where we are) thought the same thing. But as you have pointed out and I never claimed, I'm not psychic. Can I once more point out that I never meant to say that Yeebsy intended to talk about chemtrails, but only that his post implied chemtrails? (Not that he implied them. That his post implied them.)

And I made a poor word-choice when I said "apologize" or whatever exactly I said. I meant that he should have corrected people, not reprimanded them.

First page posts who thought he was talking about chemtrails.

Originally posted by Snippy23
The theory that contrails dissipate quickly and chemtrails last, so observers can reliably tell the difference, is some of the silliest pseudo-science that appears on ATS.

For solid scientific evidence of allied aircraft in 1944 leaving lasting contrails which went on to affect the weather, please have a look at this recent thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'll break it down for you.

1) OP talks about a contrail that stays in the air for a while

2) OP thinks about "several posts on this forum" -- while he doesn't specify which, can you at least agree that he was talking about posts about chemtrails here? Yeebsy, can you confirm or deny this, and then maybe point us to which posts you were thinking about?

3) OP says this is a good resource for "if you do see something suspicious in the sky."

So, contrail that stays in the air, which reminds him of (presumably) posts about chemtrails. It's not a very far leap to think that he is talking about chemtrails! And it's an even shorter leap to think that he meant that this contrail made him suspicious. It made him think of things that are suspicious in the sky. He does not actually say it's suspicious, but it sure sounds like

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Why would a contrail be suspicious? Contrails have been seen in the skies for the better part of a century. I would hope you're not going the "chemtrail" route as that's been debunked ad-nauseum with zero scientific evidence to back it up.

edit on 24-7-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)

Look! That one is even just saying "I hope you're not talking about chemtrails but it sounds like you are"!

This complete derailment could all have been avoided with an approach to clear and rational discourse.

But this is all going to fall on deaf ears, and you're probably just going to chop up this post to point out some minor error which you think disrupts my entire post. Because that's your approach to discourse.

Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

Dude, just... come on. I am talking about the first replies which had more content than "Neat website! I saw a contrail too!" Both of the first replies with actual content thought that he was talking about contrails. And I'd wager that the guy who directed him to

I find the leaps in you're breakdown very far indeed!

All you have done is point to other replies from posters who are guilty, just as are, of not understanding the true message behind the OP to back up you're position.

I can tell there's no chance you will be honest and admit you were wrong so i'm done here.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

Dude, just... come on. I am talking about the first replies which had more content than "Neat website! I saw a contrail too!" Both of the first replies with actual content thought that he was talking about contrails. And I'd wager that the guy who directed him to

I find the leaps in you're breakdown very far indeed!

All you have done is point to other replies from posters who are guilty, just as are, of not understanding the true message behind the OP to back up you're position.

Yes. That is in fact my entire point, and has been from page 1. That it was so easy to interpret the post as talking about Chemtrails, that the onus is at least partly on the OP for that.

I did not step in until the OP was claiming that everyone else was being insane for reaching the conclusion. I stepped in to say "No, they're not insane. They read what you wrote and reached a conclusion that seemed supported."

I can tell there's no chance you will be honest and admit you were wrong so i'm done here.

But I'm not wrong. You think I'm wrong about something I never even claimed to be true. Because, and here's what you've been missing, I never claimed that the OP was actually about chemtrails. I claimed that it seemed very strongly to be about chemtrails. That there was no blame assignable for thinking it was about chemtrails.

You in turn misinterpreted my posts time and again as saying something, yes, fairly similar to what I was saying. And you would not step down; you would not correct your false beliefs. Whereas I have said that the OP was not about chemtrails, and even admitted that, when I thought it was, I was wrong, you think I am still saying that the OP was about chemtrails.

Who, exactly, is dishonest here?

Originally posted by Solasis
But I'm not wrong. You think I'm wrong about something I never even claimed to be true. Because, and here's what you've been missing, I never claimed that the OP was actually about chemtrails. I claimed that it seemed very strongly to be about chemtrails. That there was no blame assignable for thinking it was about chemtrails.

Hmmmm,

Originally posted by Solasis

Originally posted by yeebsy
I will say this plain and simple for you. Not once did I believe I was witnessing a Chemtrail. Now is that plain enough English for you??

I, and others, have already summed up exactly how you implied it. Now you are being willfully ignorant. Take a deep breath and consider your words and those said to you.

If you were simply saying "I didn't mean it like that -- sorry for the confusion" this would be a completely different matter. But you took an aggressively defensive stance, acting as if we were all idiots or trolls for reading the clear, if unintended, implications of what you were saying.

That sums it up alright. The implications are quite clear to me.

Originally posted by Solasis
Who, exactly, is dishonest here?

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


Here is what your post says.

"You said exactly what you just said you said! Liar!"

Ah-- perhaps you mean the "you implied" line. I misspoke. My bad.