Smoke Smog Fog and Chemtrails

reply to post by antirepressant

The burden of "proof", for the existance of persistant "chemtrails" lies squarely on the believers

I'm glad you mentioned "burden of proof"

Since you opened the door there, let's speak in legal terms.

Since there is no evidence of murder or something to suggest criminal intent in this case at the moment

If this were an actual case pending in a United States it would be filed in a Civil Court of law.

The burden of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence". Which means the scales only need to be tipped slightly and the evidence does not have to be beyond a reasonable doubt as in a criminal murder trial.

If you are familiar at all with the justice system. Then you should know that a case begins with a pre-trial hearing.

That would be the current stage we're in. So considering we are in the pre-trial phase.

The burden of proof begins with "Prima Facie" evidence.

en.wikipedia.org...

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.

If you understand these procedures

We can now begin to build and present a case based on the evidence. Both circumstantial and factual.

The problem with "Prima Facie" evidence in this case (evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.)., is there is no judicial entity to make an initial pretrial ruling ..or "sufficient merit".
In the argument for or against "chemtrails"....nearly everybody on a chatroom assumes the role of "judge"....and votes in favor of their "merit"

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.

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by antirepressant

 

Ahhh ...I see...so you are not willing to do those things. Oh well.

What things? The things the proponents of "chemtrails" ought do: proving they exist?

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

No. I think in realism, truth and logic.

Until someone can prove at least ONE contrail is a "chemtrail", I reserve my judgement.

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.

Yes, and no. Observation may be the first step but jumping to conclusions without proof is not any step.

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.

So, the first step is to observe and use your experience as well as prior experiences of others to explain it. If there's no other prior experience, form your opinion. Following that, form a hypothesis, test your theory and report the results.

NO ONE has satisfied #4 as of yet.

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.

Doubtful.

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.

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)

Nope. Your observation was taken entirely within the context it was written. Sadly, the context, and thus the observation was incorrect.

You are more than welcome to continue promulgating your fallacy, as that is your right.

Sans proof, however, you are doing little more than perpetuating unproven hypotheses.

The onerous is on you and your ilk.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


If you want to discuss in "legal terms", then perhaps you would first be bothered to understand the reality of what that means, and how evidence is vital to building a legal case (speaking in generalities).

Real evidence, not "feelings" or "guesses" or hearsay.

There is none, to the extent that there is not, and never have been actual photos of actual airplanes that are capable of conducting the sort of "spraying" that is clearly exactly identical to contrails, in every way reasonably understood by rational people.

This means that any "investigations" to build a basis for a legal case are severely lacking in content. There are no eyewitnesses who can testify to these activities....and, if such were actually occurring, there would be a huge number of individuals involved to choose from.

There is the added fact of NO facilities for the manufacture, storage and distribution to places like airports where it can then be further stored, and handled for "loading" onto airplanes.

Over 15 years of the "chemtrail" phenomenon, and the irrational, and often intentionally deceptive claims. Yet, not one shred of any sort of evidence.


This is very illuminating.. It has all the appearances of "conspiracy" that is non-existent.....and is the result or ignorance in the extreme, with a side load of con-job for for good measure.

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.

reply to post by EyeDontKnow

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.

I agree with you and it would be nice to reach a consensus of all the stipulations. What are the things that both side can agree upon are factual.

Some of them would be easy but in this situation where some people would be willing to follow certain procedures and some would not. There would be a chaotic mess without a mediator.

Personally, I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to be able to present a case. But any time a person tries to do so, the rules suddenly change and the burden of proof becomes "I want 100% proof, every single piece of the puzzle must be presented, other wise any evidence (circumstantial or factual) becomes null and void.

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.

reply to post by antirepressant

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.

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about in my last post.

This poster starts off using legal terms like "burden of proof" and then reverts to the argument that "this is not a legal proceding".

So basically he reserves his right to troll and derail when he sees fit.



At least let's set a standard for what the "burden of proof" is and should be

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.

It's been 1000 feet (RVSM) just about everywhere for several years now.

www.faa.gov...

The RVSM has probably led to an increase in contrails, as more flights can be packed in to the levels just above 29,000 feet, where contrails are more likely to form.

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.

I'd certainly like to establish a common framework. For example - how long to contrails last, and under what conditions? What exactly are the disagreements?

The evidence for chemtrails is mostly subjective, things like "I don't remember the skies like this", or "the government is considering geoengineering". Or it's of no real connectivity, like "Monsanto has a patent on aluminum resistent seeds". I'd say that there is zero GOOD evidence for chemtrails.

You can call anything evidence if you like, other people (even in the chemtrail community). Which is why it would be a good idea to figure out what people DO agree about.

reply to post by antirepressant

So, we have a new member that is a dedicated chemtrail denier....
Welcome to ATS again. The old revolving door?

The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, but, we aren't prosecuting anybody. I am speaking, of course, for those that are merely seeking the truth.
The burden, as I see it, is on you. It is you that care nothing for discovering truth, therefore, you are burdened with dumbass, or agenda. That is some burden.

Here in this thread, we have such a high level of discussion, thanks to the OP. We have "smoke smog fog and chemtrails"....Uh, shouldn't we be able to reach out and grab 'em????

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.

Chemtrail threads reveal that there IS something going on, and certain people want to cover it up. It is the only explanation for the chemtrail trolls. Few threads have a dedicated group of denialists. The 911 threads for example, have the same sort of groupies. This speaks volumes, because almost none of the trolls here will admit to the truth about 911, they dare not. Isn't that something? Let's see some of you chemtrail denialists on the 911 threads.

Chemtrails exist and will persist, even though air traffic is down and has been declining for years.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

This poster starts off using legal terms like "burden of proof" and then reverts to the argument that "this is not a legal proceding".

You do know that the burden of proof is not always having to do with legal proceedings.

Noun 1. burden of proof - the duty of proving a disputed charge

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Now you claim chemtrails exist and that has been disputed now the "burden of proof" falls on you to prove they exist. Yes burden of proof does usually have something to do with legal proceedings,but in this case it doesn't.

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?

Is not the compressed air in the cabin,
from the outside source of the plane, and at the altitude it is flying.
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?

reply to post by SurrealisticPillow

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.

Wow again it didn't take to long before the childish comments showed up?

You don't want to hear the truth because...



So how about posting what you consider the truth? And we can go from there, so what do you say are you going to be providing this truth you say we aren't interested in hearing?

reply to post by SurrealisticPillow

This speaks volumes, because almost none of the trolls here will admit to the truth about 911, they dare not.

What does 9/11 have to do with this thread?

Can you admit the truth that chemtrails aren't real? Didn't think so. I am never surprised that you want to call people trolls when you can't even provide the evidence that is supposedly everywhere that chemtrails exist.

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?

Well passenger planes do fly through each others exhaust gases, and the air you breath inside the cabin IS outside air that is compressed - it is normally taken from the engine compressor sections.

On some older aircraft it is taken in separately - on 707's it is taken in from intakes above 3 of the engine intakes and compressed by turbo-compressors in the nacelles - the compressors themselves being powered by compressed air from the engine.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Thanks 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.

reply to post by Gmoneycricket


That is actually a really good idea.

Collect and test the air filters from the jets.

One problem I can see is contamination from ground sources whilst the plane is on the ground but it's possible the ground air conditioning system is different to the air system.

Definitely worth a closer look to see of its a viable method of getting samples.

reply to post by Chadwickus


I kinda knocked the chip of my own shoulder with that one,
guess all I can do is wait for the facts.

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Thanks 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.

well doubters such as me have often pointed out that testing of an actual "chemtrail" would be a surefire way to prove the existence, and someone (Proudbird or Weedwacker or Firepilot??) IIRC knows of somewhere in the UK (IIRC) who will hire you out an a/c to do it.

Plus there's that turboprop a/c (Gulfstream G-1)with funny attachments that is sometimes identified as a "chemtrail a/c" - it took air samples looking for pollutants in 2004

contrailscience.com...
contrailscience.com...
contrailscience.com...

so there is definitely the ability to do so somewhere.

Yes. You trolls can't even begin to address what I posted.
Why don't we put this entire thread into HOAX.