Nikola Aleksic: Stop Chemtrails or...

reply to post by dplum517

you Chemtrails deniers will eat your own Sh%*

I hear you. I was angry just like that, too, and I also thought that 'deniers' would eat sh$!.

But it started for me in 1997 and so far, nearly 15 years later, the sh$! goes uneaten.

Would you humour me and tell me please if you can cite one thing from the last 3 months that has contributed in any way to supporting the theory that these 'Chemtrails' are poisonous and intended to kill us?




I hope you guys also see from what I have written on page one that 'ChemTrails' suffer from 'Coyote Ugly'..

Those in bed with them are willing to chew their own arm off to get away.

reply to post by Frater210

Would you humour me and tell me please if you can cite one thing from the last 3 months that has contributed in any way to supporting the theory that these 'Chemtrails' are poisonous and intended to kill us?

No, because I don't believe "they" are trying to poison us. Any ill effects could merely be side-effects of what their intended purpose was/is.

As far as I can see, the purpose is to manipulate the environment/weather.

It's one thing to be discrete about it.....its another to blatantly form a huge grid over your cities head and ruin a nice day.

reply to post by dplum517


Yes, I understand that as well, I had many, many days that I instantly allowed to become a bad day upon walking outside and seeing anything in the sky that my mind might register as 'ChemTrailling'.

Knowing what I know now, I wonder whom that served.

I really do have empathy for you. my friend.

reply to post by Frater210


Well thanks, I empathize as well.

Knowing what I know now, I wonder whom that served.

What do you mean by that?

It's not that I am "angry" .....more so I just love to prod the chemtrail deniers brains.....as their ignorance never ceases to amaze me.

Any one that has done the research can see chemtrails exist in one form or another.

These people have the ability to make a Chemtrail look just like a Contrail. ....long ...short.....thick ...thin

Minus all the anecdotal evidence.....what I have seen with my own 2 eyes is more than enough for me to KNOW they are real.

Originally posted by Frater210
Would you humour me and tell me please if you can cite one thing from the last 3 months that has contributed in any way to supporting the theory that these 'Chemtrails' are poisonous and intended to kill us?

How about something from the last 15 years that shows "chemtrails" are anything but ordinary contrails? That sure would be refreshing.

Originally posted by dplum517
Minus all the anecdotal evidence.....what I have seen with my own 2 eyes is more than enough for me to KNOW they are real.

edit on 17-8-2011 by dplum517 because: typo

In the end, that's all you have. Anecdotal evidence.

There's tons of anecdotal evidence about fairies and leprechauns, but they aren't any more real than chemtrails. By your logic, everything that has ever had anecdotal evidence is real!

Everything that exists can objectively be supported by evidence. Why would you think that "chemtrails" are an exception to this rule?

reply to post by adeclerk

Why would you think that "chemtrails" are an exception to this rule?

Ummmm you think you could deduce my conclusion on that when you quoted me in the post above.

Get a life man.....are you ever going to bring anything useful to the table? Or just attack and belittle people who know about Chemtrails?

Really......nothing you say is useful.....repeating over and over that they are just normal Contrails is only proving your close minded ignorance on the topic.

reply to post by dplum517


You've never brought anything up about "chemtrails" that hasn't been debunked. And yet you talk about the ignorance of debunkers?

I would think that someone as well versed in "chemtrails" as yourself would at least have an understanding of the physics and weather conditions involved in contrail formation, and yet you deny science because it goes against your "chemtrail" faith.

Never mind the appealing lack of evidence in support of the "chemtrail" story, hell, we even know when it started and who started it! (Art Bell and his "chemtrail joint ache cream" circa 1996).

Bravo, I give you an A+ in scientific understanding and critical thinking.

Originally posted by Afterthought
If our government was smart, they'd figure out a way to make chemtrails as invisible as radioactive isotopes are.

If only

And the military would love that - but even they can't!

reply to post by adeclerk


Actually I and others have brought plenty to the table and will continue to do so.

Completely BS if you think you and other debunkers have debunked everything.

Can say it all you want...that doesn't make it so.

Saying that a certain Patent is not in use but exists is NOT debunking anything. Period.

Got that? You have NOT debunked the several Patents that clearly show what's happening.



Also.... did you even watch the OPs video????????????

In the end, that's all you have. Anecdotal evidence. There's tons of anecdotal evidence about fairies and leprechauns, but they aren't any more real than chemtrails. By your logic, everything that has ever had anecdotal evidence is real!

Way to spin the words to your bias..... ummmmmm NO there is not "tons" of evidence about fairies and leprechauns.

In science, anecdotal evidence has been defined as: "information that is not based on facts or careful study"[4][verification needed] "non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts"[5] "reports or observations of usually unscientific observers"[6] "casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"[7] "information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically" Anecdotal evidence can have varying degrees of formality. For instance, in medicine, published anecdotal evidence is called a case report, which is a more formalized type of evidence subjected to peer review.[8] Although such evidence is not seen as conclusive, it is sometimes regarded as an invitation to more rigorous scientific study of the phenomenon in question.[9] For instance, one study found that 35 of 47 anecdotal reports of side effects were later sustained as "clearly correct."[10] Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information.[11] Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence.

Did you get that?? Can you comprehend that?

"study found that 35 of 47 anecdotal reports of side effects were later sustained as "clearly correct."

I would say me and the "believers" are on to something..... your logic, not mine, is what's failing you.

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by Frater210
Would you humour me and tell me please if you can cite one thing from the last 3 months that has contributed in any way to supporting the theory that these 'Chemtrails' are poisonous and intended to kill us?

How about something from the last 15 years that shows "chemtrails" are anything but ordinary contrails? That sure would be refreshing.

but, but, but, but, but .... planes leave trails that don't disperse and I never saw them do that before I first noticed them doing it so it must be a big conspiracy and you're paid by the government and, and, and ......

Originally posted by dplum517

Saying that a certain Patent is not in use but exists is NOT debunking anything. Period.

Agreed.

But the onus is on you to show that a) the patent actually works and b) it is being used.

There are tens of thousands of patents which do not work and are not therefore being used.

I've got something that looks like morse code in the sky here today where I live. Looks like a sky full of morse code written by drunks with the lines all running together and crossing each other. There are a bunch of dashes and a few dots in white. Also there have been 4 or 5 unmarked planes painted a gray-blue, like the sky, fly into a nearby airport. What troubles me about these chemtrails is that it's so secret that no one is even telling us how safe it all is. It's global and finally there are entire countries coming out against it. Oh and about the unmarked planes here today - they look like they were recently resurrected from a graveyard - I wouldn't fly in one.

reply to post by Essan


Really Essan? I am not about to play this game with you........

No..... I don't have the Chemtrail Plane in my possession to show you.


It's almost as if you haven't even read the patents....



Ya....there are thousands of dumb patents that never get used. That's what happens when a 10 year old can have his parents patent something.

The patents we are referring to are intelligently written and detailed. If you truly think NONE of them are in use.... then I just feel bad for you I guess.

reply to post by luxordelphi

It's global and finally there are entire countries coming out against it.

Yes, it is global, Do you know what else is global?

A global population of people that have been used, abused and raped by vicious, mindless avaricious governments. A global population of people that watch a parade of technology and medical advamcements go by them while their lives get worse and worse.

A global population that is powerless to do a single thing to stop a juggernaut of war and death and genocide and devestation....

These people want to feel empowered somehow....'Hey what about those mysterious ,ChemTrails'....


To All:
I think you all get where I am coming from on this now. If not read my other posts which you didn't read in the first place.

Have fun dealing with AdeClerk and the like (Hi, AdeClerk )

Bye.

reply to post by Frater210


You need to start your own thread where you can air your very legitimate concerns and stay on topic in this one.

Originally posted by dplum517
Did you get that?? Can you comprehend that?

"study found that 35 of 47 anecdotal reports of side effects were later sustained as "clearly correct."

I would say me and the "believers" are on to something..... your logic, not mine, is what's failing you.

edit on 17-8-2011 by dplum517 because: added

Okay. You see, they were correct because we can actual MEASURE side effects, even though they initial must be observed as anecdotal evidence. The difference here? All there is to support "chemtrails" is anecdotal evidence, with no physical evidence, no anomalous air, water or soil samples. No spray planes have ever been found. No tampered fuel. And most of all, it doesn't even make sense that the elites would spray the same air they breathe for nefarious purposes!

From your link (funny how you cherry picked a part that might support your claim, eh? ):

Anecdotal evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, can be used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalising from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". While the evidence is true, it does not warrant the conclusion made from it.

In this case, chemies use anecdotal evidence that is not based on any evidence. It's also neither true or verifiable. Just because someone claims they saw something somewhere, does not change persistent contrails into purported "chemstuffs"!

The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a "typical" experience; statistical evidence can more accurately determine how typical something is.

Anecdotal "chemtrail" 'evidence' is scientifically unverifiable, and even observationally unverifiable. Funny how no one has a picture of a supposed "spray plane".

Sorry to challenge your faith, but at the end that's all you've got. As for me? I'll go with what the evidence supports.

Originally posted by Frater210
Yes, it is global, Do you know what else is global?

Yes, air traffic. If air traffic is global, it only makes sense that there would be persistent contrails all over the globe. Come on now, critical thinking.

(Hey frater! Good to see you back after the "vacuum", how has that worked out for chemtrail "evidence" )

reply to post by luxordelphi

You need to start your own thread where you can air your very legitimate concerns and stay on topic in this one.

Yeah, that's what I thought. I have touched a nerve because I have provided a third way of thinking about this. Please don't let your cognitive dissonance keep you from hearing my message.

Here is the thread you suggested I start. It was started nearly three months ago.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks, LuxorDelphi, I wish you the best of luck in your personal journey with this subject matter.

reply to post by dplum517


I study meteorology. I observe the sky. Every day.

I have seen no evidence these patents work or are being employed. You need to convince me otherwise.

Edit: but I do believe that aircraft contrails are gobal and seen by many people every day., Especially in Europe and N America where, coincidently, most aircraft fly. And personally I believe these are not a good thing. But I don't fly. Ever.