It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The burden of "proof", for the existance of persistant "chemtrails" lies squarely on the believers
In most legal proceedings, one party has a burden of proof, which requires it to present prima facie evidence for all of the essential facts in its case. If they cannot, its claim may be dismissed without any need for a response by other parties. A prima facie case might not stand or fall on its own; if an opposing party introduces other evidence or asserts an affirmative defense it can only be reconciled with a full trial. Sometimes the introduction of prima facie evidence is informally called making a case or building a case.
For example, in a trial under criminal law the prosecution has the burden of presenting prima facie evidence of each element of the crime charged against the defendant. In a murder case, this would include evidence that the victim was in fact dead, that the defendant's act caused the death, and evidence that the defendant acted with malice aforethought. If no party introduces new evidence the case stands or falls just by the prima facie evidence or lack thereof.
Prima facie evidence need not be conclusive or irrefutable: At this stage, evidence rebutting the case is not considered, only whether any party's case has enough merit to take it to a full trial.
Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by antirepressant
Ahhh ...I see...so you are not willing to do those things. Oh well.
EVERY airborne "trail" can be explained by atmospheric conditions
That statement shows ignorance. You think in black and white. It's either every trail or no trail. ...not good logic
Until you can show me two identical aircraft in the same atmospheric conditions where one leaves a trail and the other does not, I'm permitted to not buy in to the chemtrail religion.
Dude....did you even read my post. My first suggestion is to OBSERVE. Coincidentally ...that's the first step in science. To observe.
In the 20th century, a hypothetico-deductive model for scientific method was formulated...:
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
I have seen with my own two eyes what you just said. And the planes were hundreds of feet apart not thousands. So its up to YOU to look and observe. No ones going to spoon feed you.
I could care less what you buy into. Your opinion is worthless because people like you can't even start your own knowledge base on the subject.
NOte: My observation will probably be taken out of context .....but I don't assume or even think it's probable that people have seen the same things as me in different geographical regions. I have seen things that indicate they were doing "research" or "tests" which obviously wouldn't be seen everywhere.edit on 16-2-2012 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)edit on 16-2-2012 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)
If that's the case, perhaps everyone needs post a list of their held evidence, or "disclosure"......and those points are to be debated.
However without a true and ever-present "moderator" (mediator)...in a chat room, this is nearly impossible.
This is not a legal proceding, criminal, civil or otherwise.
This fact, however, does not preclude placing the burden of proof on those propagating allegations.
Originally posted by antirepressant
From MSL (Mean Sea Level) up to 29000 feet, aircraft are required to maintain a minimum of 1000 feet vertical separation, and above 29000 feet, 2000 feet separation. Also there's a requirement of approximately 3 miles horizontal / lateral / longitudinal separation, or 10-15 minutes temporal separation, dependent upon various circumstances such as landing at airports with parallel runways, in order to avoid wake turbulence and such.
Mind you, though, that from the ground, two aircraft 1/4 mile apart may APPEAR to be hundreds of feet apart. Then again, two aircraft 1/4 mile apart ARE hundreds of feet apart: as in over 10 hundred feet apart.
Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
And we get statements like.. "there is absolutely zero evidence chemmies have"
Which a completely false statement. If we can first set a standard for the burden of proof and then stick to it. At least then we have a foundation to build a case upon. We can start to move forward. Which has been something that most debunkers try to prevent with all their abilities.
This poster starts off using legal terms like "burden of proof" and then reverts to the argument that "this is not a legal proceding".
Noun 1. burden of proof - the duty of proving a disputed charge
Originally posted by Chadwickus
Ever woken up in the morning and can't see two feet in front of you because it's too foggy, or because you live in a pulluted city and the smog has built up, or a bushfire has been burning nearby and the smoke has lingered?
I think most of us can say yes to at least one of these things, for me it's been smoke which has been lingering for days now.
What does this have to do chemtrails you ask? Well the above smoke smog and fog all have one thing in common, namely they are aerosols lingering in the air at ground level where it is being breathed in and can be clearly seen.
This doesn't happen with chemtrails, they remain high in the air away from us, if they were coming down to our level wouldn't you expect to see a similar thing as you do with smoke smog and fog?
Do they suddenly become invisible despite being extremely visible high in the sky?
Can anyone explain the mechanics and science of this?
Yeah, we are really progressing on ATS. We have another dumbass troll thread. We have members rotating in and out to perpetuate ignorance, because they are not interested in truth for whatever reason. I mean, really? You know that nothing is going on? Of course you don't.
This speaks volumes, because almost none of the trolls here will admit to the truth about 911, they dare not.
Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
So with this statement as you put it, you would be breathing plane exhaust from other planes.
I take it as you maybe stating it is more harmful as a passenger on the plane?
Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
Not sure op understood.
It does show there is a collection for testing exhaust, follow another plane and then
filters could be tested for foreign aerosols.
I am assuming it has filtration designed into it.
See it seems we have come up with a way to test data if allowed.
Seems so simple I am surprised it has not been pointed out as a defense of chemtrails before, or used to prove they exist.