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.

 

Nikola Aleksic: Stop Chemtrails or...

page: 16
39
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   
He's so right.

A couple of days ago,i saw strange shapes or figures on the sky,i can't really say what it is exactly because i don't know either,and the next day,we had the worst thunders ever!We had couple of house burned,our electric devices are dead.I live there for 60 years and i had never experience that.And interesting part is only our town had this the worst thunders ever...




posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Nikola014
 


First of all, the weather conditions that are conducive to the persistence of contrails are also the conditions that usually proceed a front/change in the weather. So, basically, when the weather is right for contrails to be persistent, that often means it is going to rain in the next day or so.

That doesn't mean the persistent contrails bring rain storms. That just means the conditions in which rain storms form are also good conditions that allow contrails to stay visible for a long time.

Secondly, you are falling into the fallacy of "post hoc, ergo proctor hoc", which literally means "Before, therefore caused by". What that means is that you saw something you didn't understand, then incorrectly attributed a later event as being directly caused by that thing you didn't understand.

You need more evidence for causality other than "I saw persistent contrails the day before it rained, so it must have caused the rain".

In this case, you are partially right, because there probably is a correlation between the contrails and the rainy weather the next day. However, even though there is a correlation, that doesn't mean that one caused the other. Rather, both the persistent contrails and the rain were probably caused by a third factor -- the atmospheric weather conditions...

...That is to say, the persistent contrails didn't cause the weather, but probably the contrails were persistent because of the weather conditions.


edit on 8/19/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 



If you are employed by ATS and you post crap that shows you are NOT Denying Ignorance.........

Then ....wow..... just wow


First, we are volunteers, not employees.

Second, rather than say "crap" or "ignorance", please by all means, address and refute my points. Which of my points do you think are incorrect? Tell me WHY it's crap or ignorance. Just saying it is, without addressing it, is pretty lame.

Did I just say the idea of chemtrails is crap, and leave it at that? No, I gave you very specific reasons for my viewpoint. Why can you not do the same?

Can you show me how they could target others without affecting themselves? Evidence to suggest that even the most harmful chemicals wouldn't be diluted by the vast volume of the atmosphere? Evidence of planes filled with chemical tanks instead of passengers and/or cargo? I doubt it....



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Gazrock -- You have given us your reasons and your logic why you deny the ignorance that you personally feel is the whole chemtrail conspiracy.

Dplum -- you have yet to give solid evidence and logic as to why we should join you in denying the ignorance about contrails (i.e., you feel that they are part of a deliberate and sinister plot to harm the human race).


Also, Dplum, I'm not sure why you would criticize Gazrock. I think he did a good job in giving us logically valid reasons that show why he believes what he believes. And saying that his reasons are "logically valid" does not necessarily mean that his feelings on the subject are "the truth" -- it only means that his arguments were presented in a logical manner.

You can choose to agree or disagree with his personal feelings on the subject, but you can't criticize the methods he used to explain why he feels the way he does.

It seems like you are questioning his ability to be a moderator based solely on that fact that his feelings about contrails/chemtrails don't match your feelings. That's just silly.


edit on 8/19/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 





, you feel that they are part of a deliberate and sinister plot to harm the human race).


Please quote me and tell me where I said that. (not that it's not possible)

There are plenty of Chemtrail threads on this site where I and others have done that (this thread is not for that).... and no you have not debunked it.

Seems like that's all you debunkers know how to do...... put words in our mouths

Also who said anything about ingnorance of contrails??? I'm not ignorant of them.

I am skeptical when the only source of "contrailscience" is from NASA, AirForce, FAA, and the EPA.........

Meteorologists are not a source..... guess where they got their info on contrails ^^^^

I'm sure one day soon I will make a thread explaining my theory and what I have seen.



edit on 19-8-2011 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2011 by dplum517 because: typo



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


So you've given logical arguments that refute the claims made by contrailscience.com, and backed up those arguments with science? I'm not going to make you repeat those arguments here, but can you link me the thread(s) in which you used science to back up your claims that what contrailscience.com says about contrails is wrong?

Also, can you show me the threads or posts in which you gave evidence showing that the decades of research done by atmospheric scientists in which spreading and persistent contrails have been mentioned to exist in the past is somehow bad research?



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 





Also, can you show me the threads or posts in which you gave evidence showing that the decades of research done by atmospheric scientists in which spreading and persistent contrails have been mentioned to exist in the past is somehow bad research?


Being mentioned to exist in the past is a far cry from "decades of research"

How about we determine who has done the decades of research first before trying to prove it wrong.

Also.... I never mentioned the contrailscience.com....... I was just referring to actual Contrail Science.

That website doesn't even deserve a click. It SUCKS.

Contrailscience.com:
Which scientific organization is backing that website? NONE.
In all of the claims on that site, have any gone through the scientific method? NO
The site is owned and operated by a fellow ATS member who has NO scientific degree
The site owner has admitted he set up the site for the sole purpose of debunking Chemtrails...... NOT finding out the science of Contrails.
All in all.... that website is your debunkers bible..... NOTHING on there is valid proof of anything.


edit on 19-8-2011 by dplum517 because: typo



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


All of the contrail research is "bad science". I trust people in Arkansas with open jars left out to collect rainwater, their methodology is so obviously superior.


I wonder if "chemtrail" "researchers" even know what the word methodology means?



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


Generally I give references for any claim that might be contentious.

But is there anything actually WRONG on contrailscience.com?

If there's nothing wrong on the site, then what does it matter what my degree is in?

And what's wrong with debunking? Would you rather than the topic remain filled with bunk? You know I've point out MANY mistakes made by the chemtrail crowd. Would you rather have those mistakes ignored?



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
That website doesn't even deserve a click. It SUCKS.

Contrailscience.com:
Which scientific organization is backing that website? NONE

But if there was one, you would dismiss it as "bad science" because someone was paying for it.


Originally posted by dplum517
In all of the claims on that site, have any gone through the scientific method? NO

Why would it? Contrailscience doesn't actually perform any research or experiments, just refutes easily debunked "chemtrail" claims.

Originally posted by dplum517
The site is owned and operated by a fellow ATS member who has NO scientific degree

Like Uncinus, I implore you to find any fault with the facts on there. I notice you haven't mentioned them, I wonder why.

Originally posted by dplum517
The site owner has admitted he set up the site for the sole purpose of debunking Chemtrails...... NOT finding out the science of Contrails.

The science behind the formation of contrails debunks every chemtrail claim. Find me something that is wrong with the facts on contrail science, I dare you.

Originally posted by dplum517
All in all.... that website is your debunkers bible..... NOTHING on there is valid proof of anything.


You're right. It isn't proof of anything. But it does show just how lacking the "evidence" is in the "chemtrail" field.

Come on, use a little critical thinking and attack the facts, not the site.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


You haven't picked anything apart.

Way to analyze each sentence.


All you did was confirm every flaw in that website you use as a bible.
edit on 19-8-2011 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
All you did was confirm every flaw in that website you use as a bible.

To reiterate, I implore you to find anything wrong with the facts, information, or cited sources availible on www.contrailscience.com. Come on, show me fault with one fact, just one. That's all it would take to destroy the credibility of the website, so let's see it.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 



There's you're problem. I never specifically stated debunkers denied the 1950/60s trials. What I said was..


Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Many debubkers like to claim there has never been any proof that chemicals have ever been secretly sprayed over populations. LAC & Dew2 debunk that claim


Huh??

you think that the bolded bit isnt' you claiming that "debunkers denied the 1950/60s trials"??


Actually its not. Let me read my quote again. Nope, nothing about any 1950/60 trials.


Anyone can read that, why not you? You made an assumption that was wrong and are not mature enough to admit it. I won't bother with you anymore because our arguement is off topic and unlike you I have manners and respect for other members.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


I already showed you the faults with it dummy. You confirmed them.

That's enough right there for me not to even give it a second thought.

I'd rather go straight to the source....whether it be NASA's little PDF on contrails or some other government source.

Like I said.... not even a click for that site.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


Contrailscience.com seems to have a good methodology...

The present a claim; use logic, reasoning, and facts/evidence to make sense of the claim; then they often even uses scientific research to back up those facts/evidence. There is nothing wrong with the methodology.

What exactly have you found wrong with the ideas that contrailscience.com presents? And can you give specific reasons and evidence as to why you think those ideas are wrong?

What is the basis of YOUR information that leads you to believe what you believe about contrails/chemtrails?

I believe these questions have been asked to you before, but I still haven't seen your answer. You always say "contrailscience.com is bunk", but you never give any specific evidence illustrating why you think what they say is wrong.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by adeclerk
 


I already showed you the faults with it dummy. You confirmed them.

That's enough right there for me not to even give it a second thought.

I'd rather go straight to the source....whether it be NASA's little PDF on contrails or some other government source.

Like I said.... not even a click for that site.

I've already refuted your "faults", but your mind is made up. I'm glad we can agree that there aren't any faults with the facts presented on contrailscience.com, since you can't show any you have issue with.

edit on 8/19/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Well This will be my last post unless I am thanking someone who is awake for a change or if I answer a poster. Yes the few, the proud, and the awake !!!!!
All kidding aside, I have to say, it's like there are those who can understand simple truth, based on simple obvious facts and observations. Then there are those who remind me of chimps with a box of banans that they feed from, peeling away as they eat and continue to mutter away the lies of their handlers that are pityable in content to anyone who has a brain and an IQ of more than 60.

I read yesterday a post from "IIquiringmind", with a link named, "ex government employee talks about chemtrails". That link takes you to YouTube.com. For those interested, I would suggest that you go there and listen to this very interesting 5 part story..The address is , www.youtube.com and then under the search bar type ex government employee talk about chemtrails part 1 . Facinating find !!!

Now lets put on our thinking caps!! I hope you watched the video first. If you havn't thats ok, I will give you a heads up. So what do we have after watching the video? Remember this is supposed to be an ex CIA connected official with top clearance. He admits there is spraying!! There are pictures that are astounding!! Pics of planes loaded with barrels of chemicals!! Nozzels on multiple aircrafts and even pics from outter space of THE SPRAYING!! ..This is IMPORTANT, SO LISTEN UP MY FRIENDS OF LIKE MIND AND LISTEN UP EVEN IF YOUR PEELING ANOTHER BANANA!!!!! THERE IS ALSO A 3RD EXPLANATION TO OUR DEBATE AFTER WATCHING THE VIDEO.. ONE THAT MAKES ALL OF THIS DEBATE WE BICKER ABOUT MAKE SENSE !!

At this point I have to add a few things we know about the CIA and the way they operate.

THEY ARE LIARS AND THE FATHERS OF DIS-INFORMATION!! THEY ARE EXPERTS AT MIXING TRUTH WITH LIE AND VICE VERSA. ( I myself love a good lie because the truth is mixed in with it at times !!!

So lets talk about what this guy says and then look at what we have left after we blend it in to our debate on this subject of chemtrails.

#1 The definition of a Chemtrail vs Contrail is simple. A contrail is vapor frozen that dissipates quickly and DOES NOT HANG BEHIND AN AIRCRAFT and persist in the sky ..A Chemtrail does !!!
#2 He goes on to say that there are people who have been killed for knowing about the spraying and that the inventor of the spraying hardware etc, is now in prison and gets visits from time to time from various entities..
#3 He says that THE RUSSIANS HAVE A WEAPON THAT IS RESONSIBLE FOR THE CHALLANGER BLOWING UP AND OTHER DISASTERS OF THE US AND BEYOND !! HE SAYS THAT THE RUSSIAN'S COULD HIT US AT ANYTIME BUT THEY DON"T BECAUSE THE PRICE OF RETALIATION IS TOO HIGH !!

I wont waste time talking more about the video, plz watch it and you will understand why I say what I am about to say. So the spraying is a reality!! It's poisonous!! The CIA is trying to excuse the us of it on the world. I believe the PTB worldwide are poisoning us. They are trying to have us chase Boogie Men and fear mongering to make their use of this Ungody Weapon !!

If you need more on this from me. PLease feel free to ask.. But don't offer me a BANANA !!



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by CherubBaby
#1 The definition of a Chemtrail vs Contrail is simple. A contrail is vapor frozen that dissipates quickly and DOES NOT HANG BEHIND AN AIRCRAFT and persist in the sky ..A Chemtrail does !!!


But that's wrong. It's based on nothing. Contrails often hang behind aircraft, they always have done, back since the 1920s. Read my sig, or more detail here.

contrailscience.com...

So his entire premise is wrong.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I guess i need to try and love these trails for messing with the sun that i enjoy so much...because some contrailscience website tells me that planes need to fly at that height to save 0.9 cents on the gallon, and because of noise restrictions.

However, since i gather that basically NO planes did this till 1998 around my area, i would have to wonder what REALLY caused this change.

An actual KNOWN change that makes the stars unable to be seen, that makes a cloudless day ruined time after time.

And then people telling me that all of this is known about and even the military cannot do anything about it ????

You guys can spout all the crap you want, but everyone i know in this area just flat out did not see a contrail last for more than a minute at ANY TIME, and i am from a family of weather watchers, spent MUCH time studying the skies, stars... then suddenly BLAM, almost NEVER can we see the sky even close to as well as before.

Amazing that such an obvious problem gets NO COVERAGE at all from the media or anyone else, i guess that is why cellphones and all this portable tech released around that time too, to make sure people do not care about the sky.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 





There is nothing wrong with the methodology.


I couldn't disagree more. Everything is wrong with the methodology.

Method: When presented with a "chemtrail" photo/video/witness account ........do ANYTHING and EVERTHING possible to ignore what's been presented and instead justify why it's a Contrail.

There is a difference between being skeptical and being a debunker. A debunker has only one goal.

Again.... I ask.... what scientific organization is backing all the claims made on that site? NASA, the Air Force, FAA, and many others are government organizations that may employ scientists but by no means are those scientists speaking for that organization.




What is the basis of YOUR information that leads you to believe what you believe about contrails/chemtrails?

As I said.... maybe I will make a thread someday soon.
Patents are facts. Whether you like to live in a fantasy of "they aren't in use" is up to you.
What I have seen is a fact. You can discount and mock....but it doesn't change what I have seen.
edit on 19-8-2011 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join